I think this text should be moved to Priority one, with this page changed to a redirect, because similar messages are on that page. 31dot 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- How are they similar? This is a page about a distress call, none of the messages on the other page are distress calls. Most of them are none distress notifications. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure this is the same. I removed a red link in the references of the episode "The Way of the Warrior". The red link was "Priority 1 message". But the term "Priority 1 distress call" was used in the episode, when Dax received the call from the Xhosa. I really don't know if this is the same. – Tom 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Absoulutely, this should be merged. The text fits right in with the rest of the Priority 1 examples.Capt Christopher Donovan 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how? It is nothing like them. This was a distress call, a "help they are killing us" call. The other page has messages like "we happen to have this defector", and "we arrived at Genesis planet". Non-emergency communications, nothing the least bit like "we are about to die please save us". --OuroborosCobra talk 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A priority one designation does not indicate whether or not something is an emergency, it indicates that something is important. It can be a distress call, a request for immediate action, or an indication of important information. It doesn't have to be a life-or-death emergency, though it can be. 31dot 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are assuming (without basis, as far as I can tell) that there is only one "priority 1" designation, as opposed to a number of systems that include a "priority one" "Priority 1 message" =/= "priority 1 distress call" =/= "priority 2 message". --OuroborosCobra talk 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree my assumption has little, if any basis, but (I believe)so does the opposite point of view. Without evidence to suggest that there is more than one Priority one designation(the existence of which would seem needlessly confusing to me, like having two 911 systems), shouldn't we assume that there is not? This is how other situations are handled(USS Excelsior at 24th Century header, for example). 31dot 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- We have evidence, they called them discreet things. They called them "priority 1 distress calls" or "priority 1 messages". They didn't call it Excelsior A and Excelsior B. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If the term 'Priority two' was ever used, I would be in complete agreement with you. I think the difference in usage (distress call vs. message) is a simple matter of word usage on the part of who used them, not an indication of different systems. Even if we accept that there are different systems which each use the term priority one, the Priority one page already has different types of uses of that term. Data used it to order Worf to arrest Geordi; an Admiral used it to indicate something of importance, Uhura used it as a warning. Why not add "Kasidy Yates used it as a distress call"? 31dot 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously, "priority 1" is just a code word to identify communications of a "higher than normal" priority. Such code words are defined for many communication channels even today (for example, the international "Mayday Mayday Mayday" for distress calls or "Sofort", "Blitz" and "Staatsnot" as used as priority identifiers on German radio channels.
- Whether "priority 1" is a formally defined code word, or just used informally, we don't know. Thinking about it, what would a "non-priority 1" distress call look like? Aren't distress calls high-priority by definition? And... aren't distress calls just a special type of message, anyway?
- I guess it doesn't make much sense to have one use of it separate from all others. -- Cid Highwind 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, until recently there were different styles of distress code that were used at different times, "mayday" being one, "pan-pan" another, and "securite" another. So there is even real world precedent for different levels of distress. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- But it's possible that might have changed in the future. As Cid said, there is no way to be certain how it is used and in what manner. In my opinion they should be listed together unless there is some concrete evidence against it, but perhaps instead of merging with Priority one it should be merged with distress call and listed there as seperate from other distress calls? 31dot 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have concrete evidence, they weren't called the same thing, as I have pointed out. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, we have a consensus...not a UNANIMOUS one, but a consensus...do we move to a "formal vote", or is someone just going to go ahead and merge it? Sorry, OC, you're just not the majority opinion this time.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- A consensus needs to be unanimous. That said, a priority 1 distress call should be looked at as a form or a type of priority one communiqué. The only difference is this is a type of communiqué that was actually named. Because a priority one distress call is a type of priority one message, this could really go either way, but I'm more inclined to let it have its own page. That is, if we can expand on it more. As it is, it can probably be merged with priority one, although a more sensible place for it would be distress call. --From Andoria with Love 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again, what is your basis for saying that it is a type of priority one message when it isn't called as such, as opposed to a priority one level distress call, which it actually is called one? --OuroborosCobra talk 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my basis for saying that is that a "distress call" is a specific form of "message", plain and simple. I can't believe we're discussing the semantics of the english language, here... -- Cid Highwind 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- What he said. :P --From Andoria with Love 04:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my basis for saying that is that a "distress call" is a specific form of "message", plain and simple. I can't believe we're discussing the semantics of the english language, here... -- Cid Highwind 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your (Cid's) initial basis wasn't that, but an incorrect claim that all "distress calls" are all high priority, when in fact even in the real world they have varying priority. Basically, what I am trying to get across is ask for proof that the only thing in the Trek universe that can have a priority status is a "message". I'm still not getting any. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I never thought a small article could create such a discussion and never thought something like that when I wrote it with the aim to delete a red link. My suggestion: Merge it with distress call, and create a link (à la see also) at the priority one page. I think this is ok. – Tom 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would be satisfied with that, as it isn't grouping things together that aren't the same. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that a priority one distress call(a type of message) is different than any other priority one call, but I would also be satisfied with the idea Tom had. 31dot 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- If we really want to get anal about language semantics, "priority 1" isn't a noun, it is a description. You can't be a "priority 1", you can be a message, or a distress call. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't a distress call a message? What type of distress call is there that isn't a message? 31dot 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- An Excelsior class is a starship class, I don't see anyone trying to merge it with Galaxy class. Why? They aren't the same. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- But Excelsior class and Galaxy class are on a list of starship classes, just like a list of different types of priority one messages. 31dot 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- They still get their own articles. Last i checked there wasn't a gigabyte long article with everything on Intrepid, Defiant, Constitution, Excelsior, D'Deridex, Negh'Var, Centaur, Galaxy, etc.--OuroborosCobra talk 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't it depend on how much information there is about the items in such an article? In the case of the priority one article, there is not much more besides what is there. 31dot 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not if they are inherintly so very different. A message saying "we arrived at Genesis" is nothing like a distress call, except that they are both communicated over the medium of subspace. By the way, please do not use the same indentation as the message before you. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, just an oversight on the indent. I personally don't feel the differences are that great, but to each his own. We seem to agree on Tom's idea, so I am willing to leave it at that. :) 31dot 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I've already stated, a priority 1 distress call is simply a type of distress call, so it should be probably be merged there. Starships are tangible objects, actual things. Not sure if that makes much difference, but it's something to think about... maybe. In addition, length does play a part as well: why keep a stubbed page when the info can serve better as part of the distress call page? --From Andoria with Love 04:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, just an oversight on the indent. I personally don't feel the differences are that great, but to each his own. We seem to agree on Tom's idea, so I am willing to leave it at that. :) 31dot 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Priority two[]
Someone mentioned about how they'd tend to agree if "priority two" was used as a term. It was mentioned in "Chain of Command Part 2":
RIKER: There're some residual traces... it looks like there were emissions up until a few minutes ago.
JELLICO: Open a secure channel to Admiral Nechayev. Priority two. Put it through to my Ready Room.
RIKER: Aye, sir.