This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Klingon symbol".
- If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
- If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
- If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
I know, I know, this is a stub AT BEST. But I had hoped that if I posted it, we could all work on it a bit to get it started.--Jlandeen 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a second copy of this symbol on a computer terminal picture that I uploaded for another page, I wonder if I am overlooking something? Is this a major Klingon symbol that perhaps already has a page here? If so please let me know... I could find no previous record of it.--Jlandeen 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this might be the Klingon equivalent of the Starfleet arrowhead symbol. For example the klingon dominion war tactical maps use this symbol to apparently indicate fleets or bases and ships etc.  (copy link, paste to new page) if we could find a better name for this sign, it would be better. "klingon symbol" is a bit too generic. =) but if this turns out to be a sort of generic all purpose sign that pops up everywhere then the name is ok. =) --Pseudohuman 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree it will need renaming once we figure what it is called :) I am leaning towards "The Klingon Triforce" just kidding hehe.--Jlandeen 23:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... perhaps there is some cannon reference to its significance? Maybe it was the symbol for the High Command at some point? I think your right, that it is now used in a similar way to the StarFleet Arrowhead, but to be so large on the floor of the tribunal hearing for Archer, then again with a smaller gold version at his feet leads me to believe that it has enough significance to warrant it's own page.--Jlandeen 23:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also appears to be the generic klingon lcars button. Perhaps this is just the klingon equivalent of the dot. =D --Pseudohuman 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Once we have determined what it is, we can then link it appropriately, I do not think we should just like it for the purpose of redirects to it. It has some significance, were just not sure what yet. Still working that out :) This could be useful for someone like myself who would like to know what it means, or is used for.--Jlandeen 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- hmm. but the starfleet arrowhead has, so I wouldnt jump the gun yet on deleting this. btw the so called imperial logo may deserve a page of its own as it seems to have religious origins pre-dating the empire, as the klingon hell has a gate equiped with an inverted sign. --Pseudohuman 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I am not sure why it does not have it's own page. I think there is enough information on it to make more than a stub. There is political and religious significance. As you mentioned there is the inverted sign on the gates of Gre'thor, and I remember seeing a sideways one on a TOS show, could have something to do with faction. --Jlandeen 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign :))
- I just meant that usually stubs are created so that a redlink turns blue (see Special:WantedPages). I've always been skeptical of contriving an article that doesn't already have any inbound links. To me, that's a sign that the subject is... contrived. So my question was in good faith: What ideas did you have, when creating this, about which articles would benefit from this link? This is pretty much the whole reason that the Klingon Empire emblem doesn't have its own page. The Starfleet one is a different case, mostly because (A) we actually have some information about it besides just that "it's a symbol, here's where we saw it" and (B) we've already documented Startfleet uniforms (which it's part of) extensively. Anyway, mostly I'm just asking how to build the web here, not arguing to delete it. A page with no What links here is basically useless. --TribbleFurSuit 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Your comments were justified, first I do plan on making a page for the Klingon Empire emblem, infact I have plans for a category for emblems and symbols. But in the hear and now I plan on linking this page to where it is appropriate. *shrug* as to why I felt a need for it? I dont know.. Why do we have a page for tea? Why for graffiti? If it's in an episode or movie I feel it warrants a place here. Certainly a large symbol on the floor of a trial room warrants enough attention (in my mind at least.) Even if we don't really know what it is yet :P--Jlandeen 20:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say, this looks like a common graphic shape and not a symbol for anything -- being on the floor doesn't necessarily equal symbology. After all, some rugs have floral prints without necessarily "meaning" anything except being a designed graphic image. And Human computers have square buttons and human rooms have checkerboard floors -- but we don't have special pages here examining why the square was used in both those arrangements, it was simply a design graphic. I think we should delete this and focus on the actual Klingon symbol, which has much more proof of being meaningful as a national and spiritual symbol. -- Captain MKB 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so, you created an orphan looking for a parent. "Tea" and "graffiti" were real things we already know the names and meanings of. They were already featured in the content of other pages before their redlinks were blued. So, I'm tending to agree with Mike. As sub-sections of the articles on Triangles and Squares, entitled "Culture", maybe we can say "Klingons liek teh triangle" and "Starfleets liek teh square". But there's really no evidence that it's anything more than that, and there's no easy way at all to work this in to any real article content. Unless you have an idea we haven't seen yet that's more explicit than "where... appropriate". --TribbleFurSuit 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems this symbol is in about 12 different shows. This to me seems significant enough to warrant it's own page. If you feel it shouldn't, go ahead and delete it. When I unwrap it's mystery I will be recreating it.--Jlandeen 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neverminding what form your un-stubbing of the article will take, I'm still not seeing any clue about how it's going to be linked. We don't have a page List of essays about recurring nameless design elements. When I said above "there's no easy way at all to work this in to any real article content", I didn't mean making a real article here, I meant making whatever's here relevant to other real articles so that some inbound de-orphaning links might sprout. Go ahead, expand the article, when we see what your unwrapped mystery looks like, maybe it will be more apparent how this can be relevant and illuminating to any other articles. So far it's still an orphanly orphaned orphan. --TribbleFurSuit 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- another sighting. --Pseudohuman 11:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sweet! Nice find!--126.96.36.199 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Contrived subject. No relevance to other wiki content, = Orphan. Just a list of appearances. No information about what the symbol is supposed to be. And probably not possible to provide that. Contributor has not attempted to build the web. This deletion nomination isn't intended as a
punishment for the contributor's lack of follow-through, it's just that without it, it's useless. See Talk:Klingon symbol. --TribbleFurSuit 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, bad way to say it. All I mean is: it's nothing personal. --TribbleFurSuit 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a generic article about symbols and insignia? Without a name, this symbol should go there. If there is no such article, delete.--31dot 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree on deletion based on the suggestions above, but I still feel there is significant use of this symbol to warrant a page. Although it may be pointless to keep the page until we have that further information. so I guess my vote is neutral, Keep if we can figure it out together (so far I am unsuccessful) delete it if no one can find it.--188.8.131.52 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Considering that it's only used and not explained or given any prominence maybe it should just go on the Klingon page. — Morder 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted - Alan 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)