Wątek rozpoczęty przez Starbase101
Starbase101@SCM Data suggestionsFellow Star Trek enthusiasts, I would like to take on the task of cleaning up the Star Trek category regarding proper/correct data populated under Decal Options (poor name, since it encompasses more than just decals). The existing template doesn't quite work cleanly for Star Trek subjects:
1. Topic
2. Type
3. Usage
4. Country
5. Organisation
6. Unit/Team
7. Number
8. Nickname
9. Color schema
10. Pilot/Driver
11. Year
12. Month
13. Event
14. Location
15. Country (yes, repeated)
16. Result
1. Topic is self-explanitory, that must be populated for each topic in a multi-topic product.
2. Type should probably be the same value as Topic, since that is what gets displayed as headers under "Markings" when viewing a product. Also for starship classes, it makes sense that this would be the type of starship, which typically is the topic anyway - such as "Starship Constitution-class"...that is the vessel's type.
3. Probably "Civil" for Starfleet vessels and "Military" for Cardassian, Klingon, Romulan?
4. There are no "countries" in the Star Trek time period, so maybe this field could be used for the planet name? For example, UESPA (United Earth Space Probe Agency) means there is a United Earth rather than separate countries, so maybe values like Earth, Kronos, Romulus, etc. Open to suggestions, or leave it blank.
5. Could be "United Federation of Planets", but Earth's spaceships are registered with "Starfleet". (Similar situation with Klingon, Romulan, etc.)
6. Seems this would be left blank...
7. At least for Starfleet vessels, the ship's registration number, such as "NCC-1701".
8. Although not a "nickname", this is probably the best field for entering the *Name* of a vessel, such as "U.S.S. Enterprise".
9. Probably left blank.
10. I doubt we want starship pilots entered here (helm officers). It's probably more useful to populate this with a ship's commanding officer. When a ship had multiple captains, such as the Enterprise (Pike and Kirk), probably enter the latest/last captain?
11. Some database entries have this field populated, but I don't think this is meant to be the commission year or decommission year - it looks like this is meant to be the date (and month) of an Event for the subject.
13. Only should be populated if the subject is associated with one (and ONLY one) specific event, otherwise left blank.
14. Location where the Event occurred, usually will be blank.
15. Country where the Event occurred (this will surely be blank for everything in Star Trek).
16. Result of the Event, again probably left blank.
Any comments/suggestions before I start on this?
1. Topic
2. Type
3. Usage
4. Country
5. Organisation
6. Unit/Team
7. Number
8. Nickname
9. Color schema
10. Pilot/Driver
11. Year
12. Month
13. Event
14. Location
15. Country (yes, repeated)
16. Result
1. Topic is self-explanitory, that must be populated for each topic in a multi-topic product.
2. Type should probably be the same value as Topic, since that is what gets displayed as headers under "Markings" when viewing a product. Also for starship classes, it makes sense that this would be the type of starship, which typically is the topic anyway - such as "Starship Constitution-class"...that is the vessel's type.
3. Probably "Civil" for Starfleet vessels and "Military" for Cardassian, Klingon, Romulan?
4. There are no "countries" in the Star Trek time period, so maybe this field could be used for the planet name? For example, UESPA (United Earth Space Probe Agency) means there is a United Earth rather than separate countries, so maybe values like Earth, Kronos, Romulus, etc. Open to suggestions, or leave it blank.
5. Could be "United Federation of Planets", but Earth's spaceships are registered with "Starfleet". (Similar situation with Klingon, Romulan, etc.)
6. Seems this would be left blank...
7. At least for Starfleet vessels, the ship's registration number, such as "NCC-1701".
8. Although not a "nickname", this is probably the best field for entering the *Name* of a vessel, such as "U.S.S. Enterprise".
9. Probably left blank.
10. I doubt we want starship pilots entered here (helm officers). It's probably more useful to populate this with a ship's commanding officer. When a ship had multiple captains, such as the Enterprise (Pike and Kirk), probably enter the latest/last captain?
11. Some database entries have this field populated, but I don't think this is meant to be the commission year or decommission year - it looks like this is meant to be the date (and month) of an Event for the subject.
13. Only should be populated if the subject is associated with one (and ONLY one) specific event, otherwise left blank.
14. Location where the Event occurred, usually will be blank.
15. Country where the Event occurred (this will surely be blank for everything in Star Trek).
16. Result of the Event, again probably left blank.
Any comments/suggestions before I start on this?
10 August 2020, 13:53
scalematesI suggest to apply the same for vessels as we do for ships (vessels as well)
2. Type => USS Enterprise
7. Number => NCC-1701
8. Nickname => Keep blank
I can change the
"Exact typename & version (NO tailcodes, noseart, location). For ships= ship name*"
"Exact typename & version (NO tailcodes, noseart, location). For vessels= vessel name*" to make it more generic
10 August 2020, 14:03
scalematesperfect example from ships:
USS Enterprise CVN-65 (Tamiya 78007, 1:350)
10 August 2020, 14:05
TorstenThat's very complex and complicated, I don't know I like it, but will think about it
10 August 2020, 14:07
Starbase101Tim, in your example, Type is populated with the topic, not the ship name (just as I was suggesting, so it displays nicely when viewing the product). The vessel name "USS Enterprise" is in the Unit/Team field.
Torsten, I'm not suggesting that all 16 fields get populated - I'm trying to reconcile the existing template fields with the Star Trek universe. "United Federation of Planets" is not synonymous with "Starfleet", and there is currently a lot of variation in the database with existing entries. I'm voluteering to clean it up, and asking for comments and suggestions before starting. (As you might guess from my nickname - I believe I'm qualified for the task, being a fan of the franchise for ~50 years.)
10 August 2020, 15:24
scalemateswell, bad example in that case 🙂
please refresh
USS Enterprise should not be in the "unit" field
the vessel name must go in to the Type field
10 August 2020, 15:36
Starbase101Tim, I have to disagree there. Type should be the vessel's type - Constitution class, Galaxy class, Sovereign class, etc. That is the *type* of vessel. I would think the vessel's name is better beside its registry number, and "Nickname" renamed to "Name" for fitting better with multiple subjects.
10 August 2020, 15:48
Starbase101Torsten, then you can appreciate the task of trying to fit a square peg (Star Trek data values) into a round hole (Decal Options template). 🙂
10 August 2020, 15:58
scalematesWe already have a TOPIC field, why bother repeating the same info as the default rule... does not make sense
Please use Type for the vessel name! (consistent with how it should be done for ships)
Topic:
- Grumman F-14 Tomcat
Types:
Grumman F-14A Tomcat
Grumman F-14A+ Tomcat
Grumman F-14B Tomcat
Grumman F-14D Tomcat
...
Topic:
- Aircraft carrier Nimitz-class
Types:
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
....
10 August 2020, 16:26
Starbase101"Type" and "Name" are not synonymous. "Type" should be the TYPE of vessel, "Name" should be the vessel's NAME. There could be multiple types of the same topic as in your Grumman example (and if they were individually-named then where would you put the names of each vessel type?), and there could easily be multiple names of the same type as in your Nimitz-class example (and definitely multiple starship names within the same vessel class). Shoving them both into "Type" doesn't read well.
Also, TOPIC is not shown in the Markings section when viewing a product, whether it be single-topic (makes sense, it's above in the Facts section) or multi-topic (no topics shown anywhere at all on the product page). In the absence of topics being shown for multi-topic items, then there is no reference anywhere in the Markings (or the whole page) for a vessel's type (i.e. the starship classification). So a product having multiple decal markings for vessels within multiple topics has no association of the vessels with their topics (visually, when viewing the product).
I'm not trying to be argumentative - I would just like this to make sense for sci-fi subjects and trying to get the best "fit" for Star Trek data values in the Decal Options template.
10 August 2020, 16:34
David JungAlthough I like Star Trek and watched TOS when originally aired, I don't have a dog in this hunt. 🙂
My only observation is some of the decal/markings/etc in a kit are for a number of different named ships. Do you intend to go with the name on the box art/wording?
10 August 2020, 17:33
Starbase101David, when you say "name", are you referring to the class name or vessel name? As I've been trying to explain, these are two different things. For the class name, that is well-documented in the TV shows and movies, various Star Trek reference books, and online Trek reference sites such as Memory Alpha. For the vessel name(s), obviously those should come directly from the actual decal markings, regardless of what's printed on the product packaging, since that is what's inside the box and intended for applying to the model. (After-market decals don't count because they are entirely different products and thus will have their own separate database entries.)
10 August 2020, 17:49
Starbase101Since they are "Decal Options", vessel names would come from the decals included with the product. Sometimes that will be only one name, other times it will be multiple names (requiring separate Decal Options entries for each marking). Kits that include "generic" markings allowing you to create your own unique NCC number and vessel name obviously cannot be represented in the Decal Options, unless Tim has a recommended (and logical) convention for generic custom markings included with a model kit.
10 August 2020, 18:00
TorstenI'm with 101, type ist not name. The class is okay, but we have some different ships from the class where the name is the difference.
11 August 2020, 08:43
TreehuggerPresumably, 'types' here basically means types of topic. 🙂 Neither name related, nor class/variant related.
11 August 2020, 11:00
Derek Huggett'Scalemates' = Scale Modelling Database/Stash Manager. 🙂 It's not meant to be a Starfleet Directory IMHO. Just an observation.
11 August 2020, 11:28
scalematesquestion....
if you build a Starship Constitution-class are there other differences except for the "registration number"?
USS Valiant (NCC-1718)
USS Yorktown (NCC-1717)
USS Challenger (NCC-1715)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
...
(eg. the NCC-1718 was built later and has these extra antennas...extra XYZ and no ABC)
11 August 2020, 12:06
Jeremy WiltcherI've got a few Star Trek models and I'm a fan but this site is an invaluable resource for cataloging, sharing, researching, reading reviews before buying, finding parts, and finding the sources for buying the kits themselves, and so much more, and its all FREE.
So I'm with Derek Huggett on this one it doesn't need to be a perfect encyclopedia on a "fictional" subject that the models themselves are based on.
11 August 2020, 12:19
Starbase101If all we care about are building kits and maintaining a stash, then why even have a detailed Decal Options in the first place?! I mean really...what does it matter who the pilot/driver is/was? Who cares what event the model represents? Who cares what unit/team the model is of? Just build the damned kit and be happy about it. This is not about creating a "Starfleet Directory" and I never suggested it as such. It is about properly documenting the decal markings included with a kit as already supported by the SCM product information form - no differently than if it was an aircraft carrier, or a tank, or a racecar, etc. I don't see why it should be viewed so trivial simply because it's Star Trek instead of a subject more popular with modelers.
11 August 2020, 13:41
TreehuggerHow about a free field text for every item, and then when using the search, the search engine somehow reads through the free field text for all kits? I guess database tech takes care of performance.
11 August 2020, 13:43
Jeremy WiltcherI am all for knowing what decals come with a kit, I do believe that is important. I may have misunderstood and thought you were asking for tons of "cannon" information about the ships being listed.
I like Treehugger's suggestion about a Notes section, that sounds like a great idea that would solve a lot of problems without having to have tons of question fields.
11 August 2020, 14:11
Starbase101In my opinion, we shouldn't need nearly all the fields present on the Decal Options form. They aren't relevent to a *model kit*. This isn't a WWII historical site or NASCAR historical site any more than it is a Sci-Fi historical site. I think really all that should be needed is:
1. Rename "Decal Options" to "Topics/Markings" because this section is also used for documenting the topics of Multi-Topic products.
2. "Topic" (necessary for Multi-Topic products, and have this DISPLAYED when viewing multi-topic products).
3. "Marking" (a free text field as @Treehugger suggested for indicating ONE unique marking within the kit).
4. "Add Marking" button (for adding an additional free text field, necessary for kits having multiple markings).
Aditionally...
5. Enable related-product linking for multi-topic products.
6. Have the site search results include product markings.
Everything else is superfluous with regards to researching, shopping for, or building a model kit. With this proposed change to product information....
SnapFast U.S.S. Enterprise 1.. Set (AMT/ERTL 8002, 1:2500) (Multi-Kit/Multi-Topic product) would be entered as 3 topics, 1 marking per topic:
Topic: "Starship Excelsior-class"
Marking: "NCC-1701-B U.S.S. Enterprise"
Topic: "Starship Ambassador-class"
Marking: "NCC-1701-C U.S.S. Enterprise"
Topic: "Starship Sovereign-class"
Marking: "NCC-1701-E U.S.S. Enterprise"
U.S.S. Enterprise (AMT/ERTL 6676, 1:650) would be entered as 1 topic, 14 markings (yes, the decal sheet does indeed have markings for 14 vessels):
Topic: "Starship Constitution-class"
Marking: "NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic"
Marking: "NCC-1700 U.S.S. Constitution"
Marking: "NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise"
Marking: "NCC-1702 U.S.S. Farragut"
Marking: "NCC-1703 U.S.S. Lexington"
Marking: "NCC-1704 U.S.S. Yorktown"
Marking: "NCC-1705 U.S.S. Excalibur"
Marking: "NCC-1706 U.S.S. Exeter"
Marking: "NCC-1707 U.S.S. Hood"
Marking: "NCC-1708 U.S.S. Intrepid"
Marking: "NCC-1709 U.S.S. Valiant"
Marking: "NCC-1710 U.S.S. Kongo"
Marking: "NCC-1711 U.S.S. Potempkin"
[img1]
11 August 2020, 14:54
scalematesshortcutting as this is going out of scope again
removing fields from decal options = we don't go that route! (no discussion, simply out of scope!)
modifying/extending to be able to adopt sci-fi models = in scope
11 August 2020, 15:04
Starbase101Do what you will then, it doesn't change the boxes in my closets or the decal sheets they contain.
11 August 2020, 15:12
scalematesplease reread!
==> modifying/extending to be able to adopt sci-fi models = in scope
11 August 2020, 15:15
Luc BI added the 14 options you mentioned, sounds to work like it should
U.S.S. Enterprise (AMT/ERTL 6676, 1:650)
11 August 2020, 20:50
scalematesthx! another example filled in nicely
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-C (AMT/ERTL 8001, 1:1400)
11 August 2020, 21:16
scalemates👍 👍 can you add "United Federation of Planets" as the organisation, like Starbase101 suggested and in line with what others did in the past.
11 August 2020, 21:33
scalematesthe good thing, if you now search for "NCC-26517 USS Excalibur" you will get this kit: SCM Search: NCC-26517 USS Excalibur
11 August 2020, 21:34
scalematesand "alternate NCC number, STTNG" should be another line with that specific number
11 August 2020, 21:35
Starbase101Thanks, but inconsistent and incorrect. NCC numbers are registered with Starfleet, not United Federation of Planets (two organizations, not synonymous), Starfleet is not a "Military" organization (they say so in the TV show), the ship's registry NUMBER is not part of its NAME (they are two separate entities), "USS" should be "U.S.S." (as printed on the decals and seen in the shows), one has a captain specified (Rachel Garrett) and the others do not, "2265" is not a valid entry for the Date (Date is the date of an Event, thus why Date, Month, Event, Country, and Result are all on one line - Date by itself means nothing).
I never said it couldn't be done (re-read the original post) - that is why I was volunteering to update all the Star Trek kits in the database. I was attempting to determine a consensus for the implementation before beginning the task. I still do not agree that "Type" should be used for a vessel's NAME. "Type" should be the type of vessel, which is totally not the same thing as the vessel's name.
The point trying to be made in the original post is there's no consistency among the Star Trek data values and some of the data is incorrect, as exemplified by the examples posted. If it's going to be done, it should be done according to a standard (what was originally being asked about) and done correctly.
11 August 2020, 21:38
scalematesI get your original points! and we can continue with these. (but the derailed discussion stating that x fields should be removed is out of scope)
YEAR is the year corresponding to the markings....
eg. a plane with specific markings during D-Day = 1944
eg. a race car with the markings during a specific race = 1999 (or any other year)
if the year is not relevant, you can/should leave it blank.
But maybe some kits are linked to certain "battles" in whatever year 22xx.... if so you can fill it in.
"USS" should be "U.S.S." => I can bulk change, and any future updates can be auto updated to U.S.S.
So Starfleet is the organisation part of the United Federation of Planets
just like US Navy is an organisation part of the United States of Americas.
So from that perspective I need to create a "country" => "United Federation of Planets". (yes I know it is not a country, but they have a flag and behave like a country/sovereign state)...?
ps: I made some label changes
Pilot/Driver => Pilot/Driver/Captain
"Type" => was changed to "Subject"....consistent with the "Subject filter"
Type help text => includes sci-fi instructions (Vessel name)
"Decal options" under edit was renamed to "Markings", consistent with the view mode
11 August 2020, 21:53
Starbase101Yes, Starfleet is akin to Navy or Air Force. "United Federation of Planets" is a multi-planet union (similar to the United Kingdom or United Nations) with each planet having their own ships. Earth's are Starfleet. Vulcan (another planet in the Federation) will have a different organization for their vessels. Etc. You don't see British vehicles being registered with the "United Kingdom", right? They're R.A.F. and such.
What do you think of renaming "Country" to "Location"? It opens up more general possibilities. Granted, the Federation still isn't a physical location, but then planet names could be used and it would read better and still be valid for values like "France", "Germany", etc.
So, like I had originally asked, you want Year to be the vessel's commissioning year? (You'll note in the original post, many of the points made were questions with some suggestions offered.)
Like I said, I'm looking for a consensus on what/where the data should be, and then I'll start on the task.
11 August 2020, 22:05
scalematesLocation to me sounds like a city/region. I would rather keep it to "Country" and add some additional non-earth countries/planets if that is needed.
there is already a "location field", this a free form text field supporting non country locations
11 August 2020, 22:11
scalematesCan I bulk update and fill in/correct the "Country" to "UFP" and organisation to "Starfleet" for Star trek subjects/vessel names with an NCC registration number?
11 August 2020, 22:15
scalematesFYI... 147 U.S.S. entries bulk fixed, 63 options auto set to country=UFP and organisation = Starfleet. 6 items Auto fixed "Star Fleet" to "Starfleet".
11 August 2020, 22:29
Starbase101I would actually spell out "United Federation of Planets" rather than a "UFP" acronym. It's also not appropriate to bulk update all Star Trek kits to "United Federation of Planets" and "Starfleet"....there are Klingon, Romulan, Ferengi, Borg, etc kits in the database that would take offense.... 🙂
I never proposed populating all the fields with "canon" information. A person shouldn't have to look up information in a Star Trek Encyclopedia in order to populate model kit MARKINGS. I can see where a pilot/driver value could have merit for some vessels (such as a warplane flown by a specific pilot or a racecar driven by a specific racer and decal markings of such, or say the "Starbuck" or "Apollo" marking on Colonial Vipers), but starships do not have the captain denoted anywhere on the hull, so why include that data in a kit's Markings? In my opinion, if it's not on the decal sheet, it shouldn't necessarily be in the markings data except maybe as needed to help clarify the vessel (such as Starfleet versus Klingon Defense Force, etc).
11 August 2020, 22:31
scalematesI do use 'United Federation of Planets', but writing UFP is faster😉
I only set UFP/Starfleet for vessels with code NCC-*
11 August 2020, 22:34
Starbase101It would be interesting to know whether the database uses/prefers "Royal Air Force" versus "RAF".
Despite the bulk update (which is helpful by the way), kits should still be checked visually for correctness. During my initial investigation I did find kits having incorrect names in their markings.
11 August 2020, 22:40
scalemateswe use Royal Air Force, not RAF
for countries searching for both "UFP" and "United Federation of Planets" works
11 August 2020, 22:44
Chaz GordonStarfleet is the Military/Navy of the UFP, not Earth. Full members of the UFP provide crew members to Star Fleet, associated planets and allies have their own Fleet/Navy. Humans are the dominant race in Starfleet, but are not solely from Earth. Vulcans Join the UFP along with the Human planets, Andorians, and others over time. By the time of DS9, Bajor was in the process of becoming full federation members with the gradual absorption of their military into starfleet, although this process would take many years.
11 August 2020, 22:51
Starbase101Absolutely correct, if a kit includes decals for 2 registries then indeed they should both be listed as markings for the kit. (After all, that's what's in the kit's box.) What I'm saying is if it's not a marking (i.e. Date, Captain, etc) and it doesn't assist with a vessel's identification (such as Starfleet), then does the data really belong in the Markings?
As mentioned eariler, the goal is not to populate as much as possible with canon data creating a sort of Starfleet Directory (there are already enough websites with that content). My original objective is still the same - populate the decal markings for each kit with correct and consistent values for the products. (I say "products" rather than "kits", because some items are stand-alone aftermarket decals containing markings for kits.)
11 August 2020, 23:00
Chaz GordonOn the Royal Air Force Vs RAF, there is s a clear rule (It's in Queens Regulations). Having served for 7 years, it is paragraph one of Day 1 of Basic Training. It is always stated as Royal Air Force (Same rule applies to the commonwealth Royal Forces) However it can be written RAF, such as the honorific for Officers, Base prefixes, Group titles (ie 1 Group, RAF), RAFG, etc. where brevity is necessary. Where space permits, the Long form is always used (Station Gate Crests, The side of the Voyagers, Globemasters, Vehicles etc)
11 August 2020, 23:02
Starbase101@Chaz, yes you are correct. That aside, the issue involved "NCC-" registries being associated with Starfleet rather than United Federation of Planets. Your description of UFP helps prove the point that Starfleet is the correct organization for ships like Enterprise. Other planets in the Federation have their own ships, and even if they were to have "United Federation of Planets" printed on their hull like the Film vessels do, their registry numbers would be for their respective organizations rather than Starfleet. And Picard is quoted saying, "Starfleet is not a military organization."
11 August 2020, 23:07
Chaz GordonThe following is a good canon based reference for the various registry codes in the Trek Universe
memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Registry
11 August 2020, 23:10
Starbase101More evidence for "Starfleet" rather than "United Federation of Planets".
11 August 2020, 23:18
Starbase101So, has an agreement been reached regarding the Markings standardization for Star Trek kits? Enter only what's included on the decal sheet(s)...i.e. no Date (unless the markings are specific to a particular date), no Pilot/Driver/Captain (unless included on the decal sheet), "Civil" for Starfleet vessels, Country is "United Federation of Planets" or ("Klingon Empire", etc)? Anything that I missed?
12 August 2020, 01:15
Luc BI see a mix of "Starfleet" being marked as "Civil", some "military" and some empty. What is the correct setting and can we bulk change? if not I can fix accordingly.
12 August 2020, 12:41
Starbase101I'm already in the process of reviewing and fixing the kits. With over 1300 items this will not be a one-day task. (Regardless of any bulk change, each kit still needs visual review for correctness since it's not strictly Markings to be fixed. I've already found kits having no box art photo, incorrect brand, missing product number, etc)
12 August 2020, 12:51
scalematesbulk fixing certain things will also make sure that certain new entries would become consistent in an automated way in the future.
Starfleet = Civil?
12 August 2020, 14:08
Starbase101Most of the time, yes Starfleet will be civil. I think there might be some craft that were built specifically for military use and those can be overridden as I find them.
12 August 2020, 14:31
Chaz GordonStarfleet = Military. There are few Civil Human ships seen in Trek, but those that are are generally named SS Titanic etc
13 August 2020, 07:35
Starbase101You cannot get much more canon than the actual show:
Star Trek The Next Generation, "Peak Performance", Captain Picard: "Starfleet is not a military organization. Our purpose is exploration."
"Star Trek: Beyond", Lieutenant Scott: "The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency."
"Star Trek" (2009), Captain Pike: "Starfleet could use you. It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."
And from the creator of Star Trek itself, Gene Roddenberry, written in the Writer/Director's Guide (essentially, the Star Trek "bible"😢:
"Starfleet is not a military organisation. It is a scientific research and diplomatic body.
Although the duties of the Enterprise may include some military responsibilities, the primary purpose of the Enterprise — as with all Starfleet vessels is to expand the body of human knowledge.
In practice this means that our armaments and militarism have been de-emphasized over the previous series and very much de-emphasized over the movies. We will not see saluting. We may hear the word "sir", but it is extended as the same kind of courtesy used by junior and senior officers on civilian airliners. It is traditional, however, to use ship's ranks on the bridge, an acknowledgment of the naval heritage of Starfleet."
13 August 2020, 12:21
Starbase101There are two Organizations being used interchangeably in the database which I don't think is correct, "Klingon Empire" and "Klingon Imperial Fleet". My opinion is that "Klingon Empire" is more like a SCM Country, similar to "United Federation of Planets" and could be added as one of the Country choices, and "Klingon Imperial Fleet" is more like an Organization similar to "Starfleet". Similar situation with Romulans - "Romulan Star Empire" is like a SCM Country, and the Organization would be something like "Romulan Military" or "Romulan Fleet" (it is vague, since "we know so little about them..."😢. If there is agreement, Tim could probably bulk-change the database items.
13 August 2020, 13:36
Chaz GordonStarfleet may not be "Military", but it's also not "Civil":
Benjamin Sisko, "We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle and sometimes our lives." (DS9: "Rules of Engagement"😢 During the Battle of Wolf 359, Sisko wanted to be sure to get the civilians aboard the USS Saratoga aboard the escape pods as soon as possible. (DS9: "Emissary"😢
13 August 2020, 14:44
Starbase101Yes, I agree, Starfleet is also not "Civil", but there is no in-between usage (yet) and it's clearly stated in multiple places that Starfleet is not military. There are also many Starfleet vessels that are certainly not military (freighters, shuttlecraft, etc). Deciding between either "Civil" or "Military", Civil is better but I agree that it is also not correct. Tim might be open to adding a new Usage and bulk-changing all the Starfleet items, but what would it be named?
13 August 2020, 14:49
Chaz GordonI'd say that an organisation that carries WMDs (Photon Torpedoes & Tri-Cobalt Devices) is closer to Military than Civil if you have to pick one, Perhaps closer to the Royal Fleet Auxillary for the Freighters etc, but all Militaries have unarmed Transport and Logistics arms. The entirety of RAF Support Command for instance, running Hercules, Globemaster, Voyager, Trainers, VIP Transports etc.
13 August 2020, 14:59
Chaz GordonTalking of Military organisations with Scientific Vessels:
royalnavy.mod.uk/our..class/hms-enterprise
13 August 2020, 15:01
Starbase101Those are good points, but also remember that Starfleet weapons are intended only for defense. I'll go with whatever Tim decides since it's his database, but it is stated in the shows and strongly affirmed by Roddenberry that it is not military.
13 August 2020, 15:03