Necessary Edit

Is this article really necessary? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.155.94 (talk).

Why isn't it? Pike mentioned a parking brake in the new movie.--31dot 07:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So is an infant when McCoy gives Kirk the hypo. Should there be an article for that as well? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.155.94 (talk).

Don't see why not. In fact there is already a talk page discussing what an infant page should entail. Edit: Hmm, it appears an "infant" page had previously existed and was deleted; it seems its information on that page was added to life span. Makes me wonder why the talk page wasn't deleted or merged elsewhere. --From Andoria with Love 12:09, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's a bad example but you see my point. Everything that is mentioned doesn't deserve an article. This particular "article" serves absolutely no purpose. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.155.94 (talk).

It's fine, the article exists and does serve a purpose. If it is ever linked directly to the internal dampeners then the article will be merged and redirected. — Morder (talk) 23:26, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.31.155.94 (talk).

You might want to work on criticizing articles like Sector 21185, USS Alka-Selsior, and any of the numerous articles featured in Okudagrams before you criticize this obvious reference.--31dot 02:34, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be under inertial dampers - as a general rule, if a human calls an object one thing and Spock calls it another, Spock's term is the real name.--Ten-pint 17:43, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, marshmelons. :) The term is still valid as slang, at least. - Archduk3:talk 19:30, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Pike said it as slang, and that is how the article describes it and categorized it as. It should stay.--31dot 19:32, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

I jumped the gun a bit on the category, but my point is still valid.--31dot 19:33, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Damn, got me there. ;) And I should've read read it more closely - I do think the link on the quote should probably be to inertial damper, but the reference itself is fine.--Ten-pint 01:04, December 18, 2009 (UTC)