Wikia

Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Deletion archive 2004

Discuss0
37,464pages on
this wiki
Revision as of 15:09, March 24, 2012 by Archduk3 (Talk | contribs)

This is the Archive of moved discussions from the Deleted pages from 2004. This page originated from an early Memory Alpha:Deletion archive.

Deletion Pages: Votes for deletion, Images for deletion, Possible copyright infringements, Pages for immediate deletion

See also: Deletion log, Votes for undeletion

Active Galactic Nuclei

(CET)

    • Delete (conditional) Perhaps if the individual who created the article would place an episode reference in it, otherwise, get rid of it. -- Balok 19:40, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 21:40, 2004 Dec 30 (CET)

Alpha III system

  • Alpha III system -- Page contains no useful content, beyond the fact that Alpha III has a system of some sort somewhere. -- Steve 22:30, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)

High command (December 30, 2004)

  • High command just relates to the major governments of a few cultures (Not all of the major cultures) and the governments have no relation to High Command apart from the Klingons. I see no real need for this page. Enzo Aquarius 04:48, 12 Dec 2004 (CET)

Breen Philosophy (December 30, 2004)

  • Breen Philosophy -- Mostly speculation, no facts that aren't covered on the main Breen page. Not nearly enough info to warrant an entire page anyway. -- EtaPiscium 10:17, 13 Dec 2004 (CET)

Quantum singularity energy (December 30, 2004)

Federation constitution (December 30, 2004)

  • Federation constitution -- As much as I admire Franz Joseph's work, this probably isn't in line with the canon policy, and is borderline copyright vio. -- SmokeDetector47 09:31, 19 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete - Borderline? This looks like flat out copyright violation to me; it appears to have been scanned in, or something like it. It's also not wikified or formatted. -- Balok 00:40, 20 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • I agree with Balok. Copied material, and non-wikified. Delete, baby, delete. -- Josiah Rowe 10:46, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 13:27, 2004 Dec 29 (CET)

Klingon Physiology (December 30, 2004)

  • Klingon Physiology -- Very little of this article seems to be canon. Any information about Klingon physiology should be on the Klingon page anyway. -- EtaPiscium 03:28, 1 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • If the wealth of information was large enough, a separate article might be created at Klingon physiology.. but in its current form this is useless, delete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:12, 2 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete in current form. There may be enough info for a separate article if it was rewritten with more canon information. -- SmokeDetector47 10:01, 5 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 2004 Dec 29 (CET)

Star Wars (December 30, 2004)

  • Star Wars -- MA is not a general sci-fi encyclopedia. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:44, Dec 6, 2004 (CET)
    • Although I agree, I do not believe that is the intention of this article. Nevertheless, delete. -- Gvsualan 02:26, 6 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Agree with Gvsualan's sentiments, but I also vote to delete. -- SmokeDetector47 03:49, 6 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Keep, the page makes a reasonable connection between Star Wars and Star Trek. -- Krevaner 04:01, 9 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- MA has nothing to do with Star Wars. -- EtaPiscium 04:59, 9 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- Steve 20:41, 11 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- It's interesting speculation, but not relevant here. Balok 03:01, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Merge Breen info into main Breen page as additional information, and Delete. Unless there's some article about Star Trek references in other series/media that we could merge the rest of it in. Certainly, delete in present form. Josiah Rowe 10:34, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted (majority opinion). -- Cid Highwind 11:19, 2004 Dec 29 (CET)

Species 8472 Philosophy (December 30, 2004)

Warp drive for dummies (December 9, 2004)

  • Warp drive for dummies -- I'm not sure where this info is from, but it's not canon. -- EtaPiscium 03:20, 2 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Shouldn't information (If canon) be placed in a subject related to the topic, not as a separate article? (If this was canon, it should be in Warp Drive) Enzo Aquarius 04:07, 2 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. Completely non-canon. Please remember to add {{deletion}} to VfD nominations. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:29, Dec 2, 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:28, 4 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Keep, maybe that IS how warp works. -- Krevaner 14:25, 4 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete, Memory Alpha isn't about "maybe" it's about what is established as "fact" or more specifically "canon" in the Star Trek Universe. -- Gvsualan 14:42, 4 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47 10:01, 5 Dec 2004 (CET)
      • Krevaner, even if that is how warp drive works, there's still no reference for this article according to our naming conventions, and various other lacks of reference and credibility here. "Maybe"s aren't really good enough for me. im going to recommed moving and cleaning up. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:34, 5 Dec 2004 (CET)

The Real Future of Humanity (December 9, 2004)

Pulse drive (December 9, 2004)

Iconian software weapon (December 6, 2004)

Iconian software weapon -- The artical should be "Iconian program", and it assumes the program was a weapon, in which Picard believes that it was not by design. The whole episode sugest that the malfunctions caused by the probe only because the program was incompatiable --TOSrules 05:42, Nov 23, 2004 (CET)

TOSrules, I'd consider moving the article to the new location Iconian software transmission (we don't know it was a program, either).. then, this could be removed from consideration here, and Iconian software weapon could either be orphaned and submitted to Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion as a candidate for speedy deletion as an unused redirect, once everything is unlinked from it. Or, if the links seemd valid as they were, it could be submitted to Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects. But, since you pointed out this is an incorrect terminology, I wouldn't think it a good redirect. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
They did refer to it as a program sevral times, the most notable is La Forge whom said the probe delevered a program. Although the accuracy of that title could be called in question, it is the best, and most canon refrence to issue. --TOSrules 09:55, Nov 23, 2004 (CET)
That should settle it then. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:57, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

level 5 (December 6, 2004)

  • level 5 is not a proper article separation.. deck information should be under the class of starship or specific vessel. (the consensus was to delete the article deck 29) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:13, 29 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Delete - consensus has been to delete articles on individual decks, since their function varies from class to class, and even ship to ship. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:58, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)

Voy (December 5, 2004)

Vulcan history (December 5, 2004)

  • Vulcan history -- Mostly non canon and unacceptable, dead ender, and conflicts with an existing article Vulcan History. I don't even see much useful data for merging. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:27, 21 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Agreed, it is not only non canon, and even goes against canon facts.
    • Delete. (As an aside, shouldn't the article currently at Vulcan History be at Vulcan history, anyway? Capitalization of proper nouns and all that.) --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
      • In the "History" articles, the name constitutes a capitalized title.. much like Species and cultures and the such, its a declarative title. Things like plasma canister that arent phrases remain lower case.. its a continuing process identifying the items we need to capitalize or uncap. Keeping in mind, the reason non-phrase article titles are lower case, is to ease linking in the tone used in article bodies (ie it's a lot easier to type "He used a [[plasma canister]]." than it is to type "He used a [[Plasma Canister|plasma canister]]"). If we are using the History articles in article links this might be a favorable change. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:49, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)

Suliban ships (November 29, 2004)

Opaka Ossan (November 29, 2004)

  • Opaka Ossan -- non-canon -- EtaPiscium 00:54, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Delete --- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • While i think not all of the stuff in the article is canon (the love thing, mainly.), i'm pretty sure opaka's son was killed in kendra valley. i'll research it tomorrow, erase the superflous info and add an episode reference. await my report. ---kamagurka 03:00, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
      • Unless there's a little information to the contrary, i thought Opaka's sone went unnamed, but then again my knowledge of Bajoran material is also sketchy -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
      • Opaka's son was killed at Kendra Valley, but the character was not named. -- EtaPiscium 04:09, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
        • ah, see, i wasn't sure about that. in that case, move to "Opaka junior", maybe? otherwise, delete. --kamagurka 14:06, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Keep. - but change the information slightly; Opaka was the best Kia is an opinion and should therefore be changed. Is it not better that we present facts, rather than opinions?
      • IP users are unfortunately not included in the vote consensus tally, but it is a valid point. However, the deletion issue is due to the fact that Opaka's son was not ever named, this was written by a fan-fiction writer. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:23, 27 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:11, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)


List of Tholian starship classes (November 29, 2004)

Crew morale (November 29, 2004)

  • Crew morale -- this isn't really a particular Trek topic and the concept is pretty self-explanatory. -- EtaPiscium 08:42, 30 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Note: The latest (and only) change comment says, "small explanation, important info to be added". That was in July. -- Mjwilco 21:59, 31 Oct 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:06, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)

List of Reman starships (November 29, 2004)

  • List of Reman starships -- it seems pointless to have a list that has only one item in it. The Scimitar is already listed on List of other alien starships -- EtaPiscium 18:45, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete, this should be a sub article of the page "List of Romulan starships" --TOSrules 22:30, Oct 29, 2004 (CEST)
      • i disagree that it should be included in Romulan ships, as the Remans are most certainly not romulans, but i agree that a list with one item is pointless. i therefore agree with Etapiscium to simply delete the article and leave the scimitar on the "other alien ships" list. --kamagurka 00:21, 30 Oct 2004 (CEST)
      • I have not seen Nemesis, but isn't Remus part of the Romulan Star Empire? --TOSrules 00:44, Oct 30, 2004 (CEST)
        • it is, but since the scimitar was built as a reman effort to overthrow the romulan government i think it can be called a romulan ship about as well as maquis vessels can be called federation ships. --kamagurka 01:28, 30 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Even with the addition of the Scorpion-class fighter, I still vote to delete. The Scorpion is a class, not a ship, and thus we would once again be left with a one-ship list. Move Scimitar to the other alien ships list. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:11, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)

Captain's prerogative (November 29, 2004)

  • Captain's prerogative -- the discussion on this. is this just a figure of speech, or deserving a separate article. i say delete it -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:30, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • As mentioned on the discussion page, I think this should be deleted. -- Cid Highwind 12:43, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • agreed... like putting an article for "T'Pol's tantrums" or "Worf's crankiness." delete. --Lsigler 12:55, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • support deletion. aside: is there some policy as to when concluded deletion debates can be purged from this page, or do the site admins do that periodically? --kamagurka 23:01, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • we need to ask someone in the military as to if Captains Prerogative is a figure of speech, or an actual expression the captains authority.--TOSrules 23:17, Oct 29, 2004 (CEST)
      • i agree. however, i have to say that while googleing this i found no evidence that it was more than a figure of speech.
      • I still think we need the to consult before we delete the article. --TOSrules 09:19, Nov 5, 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. Same reasons as Cap'n Mike, really. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:06, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)


Class C-5 (November 29, 2004)

  • Class C-5 -- I do not believe that this is a valid classification. "C-5" seems to be part of the nebula's name ("McAllister C-5 Nebula") in "Chain of Command", and its classification in dialogue is a "protostellar nebula". -- EtaPiscium 02:27, 18 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • If someone can provide some context/dialogue showing that "C-5" was used as a classification it should stay. Otherwise, I agree with the suggested deletion. -- Cid Highwind 13:17, 14 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:06, Nov 29, 2004 (CET)

(Dr.) Fitzgerald (October 29th, 2004)

  • - non-canon reference for name, naming convention error. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, Oct 28, 2004 (CEST)

Senior Officer in Charge (October 29th, 2004)

Accelerator/generator (October 29th, 2004)

  • is there a way to restate this without a slash in the article title? besides, i can't even tell what series or episode this is from. when we have a source, i recommend moving to a new title and deleting this one, for the slash-character. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • agreed. --kamagurka 22:27, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • No idea what this is about. Delete or at least Move. -- Cid Highwind 12:43, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • agreed unless there is a source for this? --Lsigler 12:55, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Ullia system (October 29th, 2004)

Nietzschean (October 29th, 2004)

  • Though a concept by Gene Roddenberry it is not Star Trek -- Kobi 21:50, 31 Oct 2004 (CET)
    • Although Nietzsche was mentioned in Borderland, this article is full of non-canon stuff. Delete. Davok 10:58, 1 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • the fact aside that this has nothing to do with trek, "Nietzschean" isn't even a word. Delete. --kamagurka 12:30, 1 Nov 2004 (CET)

Gihlan't'aehn and USS Gihlan (October 28th, 2004)

  • Star Trek: The Magazine is not canon. It should be noted that USS Gihlan has been deleted before, as USS Gih'lan (although not by the same author). Content was not considered canonical, and thus not valid for inclusion. This still holds. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:57, Oct 21, 2004 (CEST)

Mahan class (October 28th, 2004)

Reflective nebula (October 28th, 2004)

Creators of artificial intelligence (October 28th, 2004)

Celsius (October 28th, 2004)

  • Nothing links to it, and it's dead end. Any info that could be on the page isn't really related to Trek. -- Mjwilco 20:57, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Celsius should go. Kelvin should take its place, with a reference to the relationship between C and K. Kelvin is used in ST, after all. -- (Toddas 16:57, 17 Oct 2004 (CEST))
      • Celsius is used all the time, too. invalid point. if C goes, K should go, too, unless it's prominently mentioned somewhere; for example, when Kes made the tea boil under tuvok's supervision (VOY: "Cold Fire"), the doctor later states she elevated his body temperature by 39° C; but is that enough to have an article about the unit? IMHO, no. only if the unit itself has some story point in Trek, an article should be created (say a couple of officers debate why starfleet uses C and not F). correct me if i got something wrong, i'm new here. --kamagurka 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, Oct 28, 2004 (CEST)~
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 10:32, 2 Nov 2004 (CET)

Alternative Kirk Chronology (August 31st, 2004)

  • first sentence says it all. Someone's personal take on Kirk's career history - original research. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:42, Aug 21, 2004 (CEST)
    • How can Cannon compare to on screen facts. It is based of the 100 year parallel between "Journey to Babel", and "Sarek" (2266). The Calendars you use suggest that the bottle of Romulan Ale 2283 is the best way to figure the date of TOS. But that is a Romulan Date. At least it is a side article rather then posted as a part of the Main article. If there are any Cannon Error's post them on the Discussion page for the Article. TOSrules 15:53, Aug 20, 2004 (PST)
      • I suggest you do it the other way around and adress your problems or suggestions regarding the original article at that article's talk page. If you've made some good discoveries, they should be included in the original article. This page should be deleted. -- Redge | Talk 01:17, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Non-canon, no references, no wiki links - I think that's all that's wrong with it! -- MiChaos 01:06, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST).
    • I suppose there is some reason to support a deletion. But this is Cannon, in that it is all based off on screen evidence (IE not from books, or games). I'd like to hear more of what other members think. TOSrules | Talk 17:54, 20 Aug 2004 (PST)
    • Delete it. The title is inconsistent with our naming conventions. Problems with the generally accepted timeline should be addressed at Talk:Timeline or Talk:James T. Kirk, but a lot of the "revelations" here seem based on speculation in in conflict with previously accepted facts. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:32, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Seems to be unconfirmed speculation. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Is there something more emphatic than just deleting it that we can do to this ? Hit it with a big stick and then delete it. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • I'm not saying keep it, but TOSrules has a point. If this site is totally based of on-screen facts, then there's no more reason to place TWoK in 2385 than 2379. -User:2 of 4
      • Except possibly for a bottle of Romulan ale dated 2283. --64.132.0.250
      • What part of the word Romulan Ale do you not understand? That is Irrelevant evidence as to the date of ST2. At least my Chronology gives 15 years between Space Seed and ST2 as where yours give 18 years. --TOSrules 01:48, 27 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:33, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:48, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Isodesium (August 31st, 2004)

The Geometry Of Subspace (August 31st, 2004)

  • non-canon speculation. -- Cid Highwind 21:04, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete -- MiChaos 23:16, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST).
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 23:56, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Delete. -- Balok 03:39, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Ottens 11:49, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep. It seem like a great explanation to me. -- Krevaner 20:28, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Sometimes whether to delete something isn't about how well written it is, but about whether it is part of the canon Trek universe. It could make all the sense in the world (within the context of the Trek universe), but if it wasn't from a canon source, at least for now, it doesn't belong here. -- Balok 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:33, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:48, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Excalibur class (August 31st, 2004)

Incursion class (August 31st, 2004)

Evolution of the Klingon Species (August 25th, 2004)

  • entirely based in non-canon. This information has been removed before from the main Klingon article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:53, Aug 18, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete Ryan123450 21:34, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Destroy it. it's not even one of the better theories i've heard explaining Klingon heads. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:47, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Non-canon. Remove. Ottens 11:42, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Yuck, delete it. Alex Peckover 14:35, Aug 20, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • get rid of it! -- Kobi 11:55, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • OK, so it is non-canon, BUT has anyone found a better explanation for the smooth brow/rough forehead inconsistencies ? Until Paramount can come up with a better one than "We don't explain it to outsiders, " I vote it stays. -- Otter 03:02, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Well this article is named contrary to our naming conventions, it contains completely non-canon data that is disallowed by our policy. If something is not specified in a canon source, we are not allowed to simply "make something up." Besides, you don't have the ability to vote in this discussion until you've actually edited a few articles. Sorry. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:18, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete it with a passion. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:00, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:31, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Warp Drive Theory (August 25th, 2004)

  • Someone's personal theory on how warp drive works. Original research, non-canon. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:23, Aug 19, 2004 (CEST)
    • Not the first of that user. Too bad, I rather like these articles. But since it's not canon, Delete. -- Redge | Talk 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Yuck, delete. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • I would hardly say yuck with regards to the article. It seems pretty smart to me. For all we know it could be the background explanation for how Warp Drive works to the Trek writers. For that reason alone I vote to KEEP it! Or at least post this information on the talk page of Warp drive. -- Krevaner 21:03, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It's a mixture of non-canon speculation and sheer fantasy. This cannot be integrated in to main Warp drive page without references at the very least, so my vote stands. Alex Peckover 21:13, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:00, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:31, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Kolarus II (August 22nd, 2004)

  • No info about that planet. Planet referred to is Kolarus III, which already has an article. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Ottens 15:54, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 23:58, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Pages created by Ottens on August 7th (August 18th, 2004)

Class pages

  • Aventeur class
  • Cochrane class
  • Declaration class
  • Galileo class
  • Horizon class
  • Mann class
  • Marshall class
  • Messier class
  • Tritium class
  • Verne class
  • Ranger class
  • Baton Rouge class

Vessel pages

  • USS Mann
  • USS Leonides
  • USS Endurance
  • USS Poseidon
  • USS Patton
  • USS Hannibal
  • USS Ranger
  • USS Bastion
  • USS Explorer
  • USS Orleans
  • USS Sal'koth
  • USS Indomitable
  • USS Coronado
  • USS Solzhenitzyn
  • USS Spann
  • USS Decatur
  • USS Duncan
  • USS Halsey
  • USS Glasgow
  • USS Savannah
  • USS Moscow
  • USS Tehran
  • Delete all with extreme prejudice. RPGs and the like are most certainly not canon. I consider this vandalism, and find it extremely disturbing coming from a long-standing user, familiar with our rules and policies. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:23, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • I think my opinions on non-canon sources for Starships have been made well clear. Delete them all. Alex Peckover 21:35, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
      • Perhaps this should go on a more general discussion page concerning canon: on each of this pages, it is clearly stated that these starships have been mentioned in a certain book (most are from the Spaceflight Chronology), and we could even put a "non-canon" notice on it, or something. But this Spaceflight Chronology is an official reference book, and was used by the writers of TOS and TNG as a reference source. I would say we keep this information, add a note at the beginning of the article, similar to the "meta trek" note that was invented some time ago, and let people decide for their own whether the information is canon enough or not... Ottens 12:22, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • According to the Memory Alpha:Canon policy, most of these articles (with the exception of those mentioned in the FASA RPG) would be considered "meta trek". Ottens 12:29, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • Well, we consider the Star Fleet Technical Manual, Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, and the Star Trek Encyclopedia as "official references" when it comes to writing articles here.. but I don't think we can go so far as to shoehorn Spaceflight Chronology into it, there are two problems with that: 1) Rick Sternbach was a senior contributor to TNG's staff when he wrote the TNG TM. His writings when he was simply a newbie illustrator on TMP is certainly less relevant. 2) The second problem is that, except for the few times when a novel or a piece of art department work has referenced it, there has been no official production attention paid to this manual, most importantly little or no canon references. I belive I stated this previously, during canon policy discussions. We also nixed the idea of purely non-canon articles existing at present on MA. Unless there's any canon references to any of those ships, current policy on MA is that they cannot posess their own article page. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 14:42, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • Couldn't these articles fall under the category of "Meta Trek" than? They have something to do with Trek, and it would expand the database of we'd allow such articles to be included. There may be people who are looking for such, and as I said, they can decide for their own whether its canon enough or not. Ottens 16:01, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
          • No, they couldn't. Are they episodes? Movies? Officially endorsed books or comics? No. That is what 'meta-Trek' articles are. We had this discussion when the Mackensie Calhoun article came up, as I'm sure Captainmike will recall and that reasoning was rejected then, as well. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:44, Aug 8, 2004 (CEST)
          • Oh, all right. These articles should be deleted than. Apoligies for including them. Ottens 12:37, 9 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • This discussion (perhaps including the list) should be archived, after which this page itself can be listed for immediate deletion. I'd do it myself, but I'm calling it for today. -- Redge | Talk 01:38, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 14:32, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Hope class (August 18th, 2004)

  • Page is inaccurate. Pasteur was Olympic-class, only an early version of the plaque stated this class designation, as stated in the Encyclopedia. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:17, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • Agreed, delete it. Alex Peckover 21:37, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • Perhaps we should keep the page, and report in it the plaque was a mistake. Seeing as how it has been on screen, it is canon. -- Redge 23:09, 7 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Except it wasn't on screen. An early preproduction version of the plaque (seen, I believe, in the documentary "Journey's End") stated it. It is worthy of a footnote in the USS Pasteur article, but not an article on its own, as it isn't canonical. The Pasteur's dedication plaque on screen gave the correct class designation. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:15, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
        • Agreed. Add it as a footnote to the Pasteur class page. I thought the incorrect Hope Class plaque was on screen, which is apparently not true. Ottens 12:19, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:56, Aug 18, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 01:25, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Timeline of Human Interstellar Dawn (August 14th, 2004)

  • Lengthy non-canon timeline, most of the information might be from the Eugenic Wars novels (?). Delete. -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I'd like to know where that information is from. Ottens 12:04, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It seems that there are canon facts on that page. They should be moved to Human History. Ottens 12:06, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I say move them, then Delete. -- Redge | Talk 17:42, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Kill this page. It's title is non-standard, and there is fairly little canon information witihn. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:47, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I say keep the page. Its got really great info and it explains a lot. All it needs is to be wikified. Krevaner 01:11, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • that would be all fine and good, but this is a very poorly researched, bulk of non-canon text. Almost none of this information is derived from any televised or filmed Star Trek, it seems to be devised solely by the author. If you can locate any references to the dates, so-called "facts" and other info in the article, then add it to human History, but this article is entirely incompatible with our canon policy --Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:15, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Maybe somebody should make a page for Star Trek speculation and put this information on the page. There has already been a lot of theories posted on this site that were good explanations for the Trek inconsistencies. -- Krevaner 01:20, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep the article. It gives a great background. -- Thinker-X 09:01, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • i'm still glad the delete votes outnumber the 'keep' votes at this point, since this article is in a basic violation of canon policy. Great background that is completely false is not really a great asset to a reference source. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:59, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Some of you might need to be reminded of our Canon Policy. This policy clearly states which resources are valid and which are invalid - and I still don't see much valid information in that article. If you want to discuss the policy, please use Memory Alpha talk:Canon policy, but for the moment, this policy has to be adhered to. -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Screw the policy. I vote to keep the Timeline of Human Interstellar Dawn. Numero 11:19, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Before this gets out of hand... According to our Deletion Policy, both Numero and Thinker-X are not allowed to vote in this case (Reason: less than 15 non-minor article edits). If these accounts were created for just this purpose - please don't do it again. If they were not, my apologies for the wrong suspicions. -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Everyone who wants to keep that page should make use of the print function of Memory Alpha. Canon details (there were two if I'm not mistaken) should be moved to the respective articles. Then someone with the power should hit delete because it does contain nothing but speculation -- Kobi 12:16, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Unless no canon source can be given, this page should be deleted. Ottens 12:42, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I suggest the page be deleted quickly, before this discussion gets out of hand. Not counting Numero and Thinker-X: Keep: 1 Delete: 5 -- Redge | Talk 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • KEEP IT. Its the best article on the entire website. If its deleted it will just make Memory Alpha poorer site. So once again, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT. -- Dinktank 14:50, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Apparently it is not only non-canon, but also a possible copyright infringement (see talk page of that article). I will list this article here as well, please vote if you agree. -- Cid Highwind 15:00, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Could we wrap this up? -- Redge | Talk 15:05, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It's both a copyvio and totally non-canon. Those new members who instantly popped up, voting to keep this are to be ignored IMO. This articles violated MA's canon policy, and should be deleted. Ottens 15:17, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted as copyright infringement (see: Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements). -- Cid Highwind 15:47, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • I'm glad that's over. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:20, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • You and me both. I suggest we keep this discussion here untill the discussion around creating an archive is resolved. -- Redge | Talk 17:18, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Archived. -- Redge | Talk 01:25, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

January 25

January 21

  • Stay Tuned. Completely non-Star Trek; the link of using the set of the Enterprise-D bridge is IMO insufficient. (And it was an absolutely horrible movie to boot!) -- Dan Carlson 19:50, 21 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Complete rubbish. Delete - DarkHorizon 02:16, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Delete. But it was interesting, since I'd never heard of it :) -- Harry 02:31, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Delete. Not a part of Star Trek. -- Cid Highwind 13:21, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Deleted by Dan Carlson 09:15, 29 Jan 2004 (PST)

January 4

  • Deneb Kaitos v. Non-canon information from the Star Trek: Star Charts, no canon information is available about this planet. See also: Talk:Terra Nova -- Cid Highwind 10:37, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Delete. Non-canon. If not deleted, then at least move to "Deneb Kaitos V". -- Harry 12:31, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Don't delete (yet). Perhaps some official books, such as Star Charts and the technical manuals could/should be included. See discussion in Memory_Alpha_talk:Canon_policy_FAQ. -- MinutiaeMan 08:06, 7 Jan 2004 (PST)
    • Addendum. Page is now just a REDIRECT to Deneb V and can be deleted. Non-canon information should still be removed from that page. -- Cid Highwind 10:06, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)

January 2

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki