Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Revision as of 13:28, 17 December 2005 by 64.235.131.10 (contribs) (archived old deletes)
View source

Template:Vfd

Q-created reality

Because of the below statement, I figured I would post this here. I'm not sure I was ever fond of the article either. Especially since no one actually did anything with it, leaving it as it is in its current state rather meaningless. What is not to say that "Q's created realities" were not "real" in the first place? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't Q-created reality fit into this (plot type) group as well? --FuturamaGuy 07:02, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, no. That page is about "realities" experienced by the crew, while the others are dubious meta-classifications (does every episode containing a first contact have a "first contact plot"?). If you want to discuss the possible deletion of that page, please create another section here. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a "List of places created-by / recreated-by / visited-with-the-help-of Q" would be a very valid list article. This article is currently "meaningless" because a list consisting of links with invalid names was removed without being replaced by a list of "correct" links: for example Sherwood Forest, Afterlife (don't we already have a list of various "afterlifes" somewhere?), the planet Q created in Hide and Q, the various representations of the Continuum itself, the Big Bang, the post-atomic horrors courtroom, Starbase Earhart and so on... Instead of simply deleting this article, we should instead discuss a better suiting title and then move. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I support a pagemove -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • I originally created this article when I made an edit to Sheriff of Nottingham when it referred him to as part of a Fantasy Game, when Q said otherwise. I felt 'Q Created reality' was best description. Since Q's can create their own reality at will, I felt it would be an interesting central article for more on the subject. I do not like the direction this article has taken, I the article should be reverted back to [this version] which follows the original intent of the article. If the names are not good enough, they can be changed from that version. Revert, keep --TOSrules 08:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sha Ka Ree Entity

Sha Ka Ree Entity
This appears to be well documented under God, as are all of the images this entity portrayed (or was intended to portray). --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Redirect(?) -- Cid Highwind 08:25, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • support redirect -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • The article needs work but I have to say keep, the Sha-Ka-Ree Entity is a character from Star Trek 5. Although I am not sure the name is correct, deleting him because he is also covered under god isn't a good reason. Each character gets his or her own page. --TOSrules 20:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Definitely keep. The article needs a lot of work but this is a specific character/entity and so deserves its own article. There's a lot of info that should be there and isn't including how it contacted Sybok, the fact that it was "imprisoned" there (we don't know by whom), etc. But definitely deserving of its own entry. Logan 5 21:50, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • -- i believe the point is that he isn't God, therefore the article "god" doesn't describe him well. Is this the best naming convention to move his information to? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Also, God seems to hold up ok as it is, the info does not need to be moved. Sha Ka Ree Entity is a whole different topic. Jaf 13:29, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf
      • I think that about covers what i was tring to say --TOSrules 22:27, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I've moved it to God of Sha Ka Ree (for now) to reflect the fact that he was referenced in the end credits of the movies as "God", the next logical step would be to add the god "of what?" -- although the planet wasn't technically "Sha Ka Ree", we refer to it as such on this website. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the old name was better, because the ShaKaRee Entity is not the god of ShaKaRee, who is Kuitu. The credits may be have him as God, but the script says he isn't god. --TOSrules 09:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • But that is what he was attempting to prove (or fool others into believing) himself to be the "God of Sha Ka Ree", that was Syboks entire interpretation of the person and the place throughout the movie, so that is the perspective we should follow. Otherwise, if you cannot accept "God of Sha Ka Ree", because he really isn't "God", then I cannot accept "Sha Ka Ree entity" because the planet he was on wasn't really "Sha Ka Ree." --Alan del Beccio 06:09, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it was located within the Great Barrier -- how about we move it to something like "Great Barrier entity" or, if you want to use how he was credited on ST5, maybe "God (Great Barrier)"? --From Andoria with Love 18:00, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Racism against Vulcans

Racism against Vulcans
Not only is it written in the wrong point of view, the topic should really be included in a subsection of the more simply titled racism. --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I figured as much, but wasn't sure what to do with it. In any case, it gave me some food for thought, as I'd never considered this idea before. Weyoun 08:26, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Roar 08:49, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • merge or delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete. --MstrControl talk | contrib. 01:48, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - It seems to me that much of this information is valuable, but should be included in the racism article. --Fenian 18:52, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I've actually noticed this myself on Voyager, because they constantly treat him as if there's something wrong with him instead of just having a different way of life. Kind of like with Ferengi, except not done for the sake of slapstick or bad puns. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:40, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this could be turned into an article about Racism in Star Trek or Racism and Star Trek or something similar. It could cover the way Gene Roddenberry intentionally added minorities and of course the famous interracial kiss with Kirk & Uhura, things like how Nichelle Nichols nearly quit because of harrassment, and of course other facets such as the racism against Vulcans notion. Dunno if that idea appeals to other people, it might be too meta. Ben Sisqo 00:23, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into racism, and then delete this. --Starchild 02:19, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, I wouldn't have thought this would be discussed for so long. Well, I guess it could be merged, but it would only have to be based on things that we know were intended as racism against Vulcans (i.e., Andrew Stiles vs. Spock in "Balance of Terror", humans against Vulcans in Star Trek: Enterprise) and not simply observations made by viewers. That qualifies as speculation, which, of course, is not permitted here. --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment I do not have the time available to give this article the attention required to salvage it. Nevertheless, I suggest that someone rewrites this in the proper pov for the page merge (which seems to be the consensus). --Alan del Beccio 12:54, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Federation fashion trends

Federation fashion trends
  • Tagged for deletion on 11/28/05 but did not appear to make it to this page for voting. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • since you didn't nominate it Alan, is there a vote implied by your comment here or are you just listing the named file? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Rename. There seems to be merit to this concept of creating a "top page" for clothing on Star Trek. (whether it be an "in-universe" examination of fashions, or a "meta Trek/ real life point of view" eye on the costumes of Star Trek).
  • RE: Mike, initially I was just placing it here because it had been tagged for deletion for a week without being placed here; obviously something needed to be done with it, and since I never said either way my feelings on it, it was a 'no vote'. But to play devils advocate and list why I think it was tagged for deletion in such a way to support a vote, I would say that it is clearly written in the wrong point of view, and as well, we would need to find a way to differentiate it from the potential redundancy that exists between ideas covered on this topic that are also, or also could or should be referenced in Starfleet uniforms. I guess we need to decide if this is going to be a production article or "in universe" article. --Alan del Beccio 18:58, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ted DeVita

Ted DeVita
Personally, I think we should just delete this immeidiately, but I'll be nice and post it here. As it states in the article, the subject has no connection to Trek except that he attended a convention. That hardly qualifies for an article here. --From Andoria with Love 22:07, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • If by "hardly qualifies," you mean "doesn't qualify," then I agree. Delete. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New IMDb templates

Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template.

The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Duty Roster redirects

Memory Alpha:DR and MA:DR
Unneeded redirects; I find it highly unlikely people are going to be looking for "DR", nor is "DR" popular enough for the everyday user to come along and know what it means (besides "doctor", of course). Also, the latter link is in the wrong format, since we don't have an "MA" here (for example, we have "template", "image", and "Memory Alpha"; "MA" doesn't constitute anything). Besides that, I just don't think the Duty Roster needs a redirect. --From Andoria with Love 06:08, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Memory Alpha:DR and keep MA:DR. Captain Mike was talking about how redirecting across namespaces is forbidden or something and claimed that the {{ma}} justified the former's existence, but I think he missed the boat. The point of this and similar redirects would be for convenience not only in typing for messages here but also going to the link (e.g. you type it into the search bar) and in edit summaries. Special:Contributions/Pd THOR has a couple of examples of how he probably has "MA:CYS" set in monobook.js, but it could be a viable way to inform people of why you reverted their edits (not in this case, of course, but for other such "MA:" redirects). There are other reasons I could list and hypothetical cases I could suggest, but you get the idea. Examples of such redirects: Wikipedia:WP:PNA (pages needing attention), StarWars:SW:MOS (manual of style), and Uncyclopedia:UN:WAR (flame war guidelines). I realize I'm rambling because I'm tired, but I think I've made my point.
For the record, no, I'm not insanely passionate about this idea and I'm not going to debate the issue when (not if) someone refutes my claims. I just think people on MA tend to be short sighted sometimes. :-) Weyoun 07:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know anything about the monobook.js file; I just use a piped link when I put that (MA:CYS) in an edit summary so that it isn't as extraordinarily long as the whole link would be otherwise. Um ... as for the votes ... I abstain on account of uninformedness.  ;^) — THOR =/\= 08:25, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Delete MA:DR -- there's no good reason to start creating redirects starting with "MA:" -- they will read to the wiki software as belonging to the "main article" namespace, but are intended to represent the project's "Memory Alpha:" namespace.
I have tried to offer alternatives to Weyoun, but he waited barely a day to start an edit war and star moving and recreating pages that were previously deleted.
Its not a discussion if you ignore everything but you own coments Weyoun. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement