Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,146
pages

Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Revision as of 04:17, 16 September 2005 by W-Tobyk777 (talk | contribs) (→‎History of humanoids)
View source

Template:Vfd

Old log files

Note:As this about files in the Memory Alpha: namespace related to the administration, normal deletion rules might not apply. This is more a discussion.

  • Help:Bureaucrat log (I already had moved that one before realizing what it is)
  • Memory Alpha:Deletion log
  • Memory Alpha:Upload log
  • Memory Alpha:Protection log
  • Memory Alpha:Block log

These five seem to be old log files from before the server move. We now have Special:Log for all these. Do we want to keep the old stuff or delete it? -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm all for cleaning house. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I deleted all of these pages but noticed that several still link to a lot of other internal pages. I intended to change them, but I am not sure to what, so the remaining blue links need to either have their links removed from other pages or replaced with the updated-replacement links on other those pages. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see some more comments regarding the deletion of these anyway - some other admins, perhaps? After all, these are log files, so we should definitely agree on what to do... -- Cid Highwind 08:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • To be fair, it has been 5 days AND very few of us/them seem to partake in much voting these days...be it categories, featured articles or what have ya...--Alan del Beccio 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure how they'd be useful, is there a feeling we should be able to peruse lists of files deleted or protected years ago? it might be nice to archive somewhere, i guess -- are we required to record vandalism and the like -- thats probably a good portion of the the block and protection info (as well as a majority of deletions). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Episode or Template:Sidebar-ep

Duplicates. do we need either? 1985 17:15, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the Template:Infobox Episode. I created it without knowing it had already been done. Rcog 18:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think your design is a little better but since the other one is on two episodes it might be best to just modify existing one. Also sorry about the deletion notice, i'm still new here. 1985 18:17, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this was brought up on Ten Forward or somewhere recently, and that it had to many variables to be of much use. I've come to like our current tables, more adaptable. - AJHalliwell 19:44, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep At least one of them. I know that it may not be perfect as it is (the variable arguments), but still think that it would be better than nothing. We could refine it later (with sub-templates, for example) and leave some blank fields for the moment. I think it still improves the clarity when we edit episodes articles and lower the chances for a newbie to make formatting mistakes. Rcog 20:12, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

Waverider

Completely non-cannon. The article sites some kind of magazine as its source. Tobyk777 06:48, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. The article cites the canon (not cannon) quite clearly, "the Waverider can be readily identified in the MSD of a Nova-class vessel". The exception, is the fact that the information in the article taken from "some magazine" (being Star Trek: The Magazine, which was only the official magazine of the series!), doesn't cite the fact that it was written by Star Trek designer and technical writer Rick Sternbach. Research, research, research, Toby.... --Alan del Beccio 07:00, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, the fact that article has been on the site for well over a year and has been contributed to by 3 administrators must mean there is some sort of legitimacy to it, no? --Alan del Beccio 07:02, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said on the article's talk page, Toby, hopefully the Prophets will restore your vision soon. I suggest you meditate on this issue. -BajoranBumpkin 07:05, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And I think you can take BajoranBrouha... I mean, BajoranBoo... er, BajoranBumpkin's as an oppose as well. :) --Shran 08:59, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL, Shran! I also oppose this deletion, just to make sure it doesn't get deleted. Zsingaya | Talk 09:02, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course -- I've made a case for this article on Talk:Waverider -- the name itself is derived from the artwork shown in the article, the small version here on MA the ship is visible in the image but the text "waverider" is not, but i've attested to why i think it does in fact say that. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:24, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • And this isn't a vote or case of treating Star Trek: The Magazine as canon -- it's not, completely -- but the magazine happens to have published portions of Sternbach, Drexler, Okuda artworks that appeared onscreen -- in my opinion, the art absolutely has to have appeared onscreen to really count as canon in this manner. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:27, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I agree with Mike that it needs to have appeared on screen to be considered legit.--Smith 16:21, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All the good points have been made, so I won't waste your time. - AJHalliwell 23:30, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

USS Cheyenne

as with the d'derix, this admits it exists only in fanon. it was mentioned by another user on a different page when it should be listed here. Makon 23:24, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Unlike the Romulans, we have proof the Federation names ships after the first of their classes. - AJHalliwell 23:27, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • however, the fact that, to quote the USS Andromeda page, "its existence is implied" proves it should not be included here. Makon 23:32, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because it's implied doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here. Charles Tucker III implies his father's name was the same, as was his grand and greatgrandther's names. (See: Charles Tucker I, Charles Tucker II, Charles Tucker III) In the Veridian system, a Veridian III and IV imply there's a I and II, because that's how the numbering system works. This, is how the shipnaming systems work. ps: my keep vote aplies to All federation starship prototypes. - AJHalliwell 23:42, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • with all due respect (i don't want this to turn into Talk:George W. Bush, so this is my last post), him being the third means there had to be two people before him. whereas when you create a starship because the class is "usually" named for the prototype, there's no way to know which if any were not named as such. Makon 23:46, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • actually, add to this USS Ambassador, USS Andromeda (particularly, read this page), and basically enter any starship class with "USS" attached to the name and it has a "hypothetical" prototype using pictures of different ships. Makon 23:30, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • i am sorry, i don't mean to be posting constantly, but let me quote the USS Wambundu page: "(conjecture published in the Star Trek Encyclopedia based on TNG:The Arsenal of Freedom)". is that canon? Makon 23:38, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it's not mentioned in the canon section, it's mentioned in the background. actually it's not, but it should be. - AJHalliwell 23:42, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We have evidence that ships are named after their class. What about the Defiant or the Intrepid? This is not based on fannon. It's an infrence made from cannon. Keep Tobyk777 01:49, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. Where I am unsure about the IRW D'Deridex, i am completely sure about any Federation starship class having the lead ship bear the class name. Every class that has an established prototype ship is named after the prototype ship, without exception. This is a resonable case for knowing (not assuming or speculating) the name of the class ship and that it did, no matter how briefly, exist. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
    • None of these ships that werent seen onscreen should have pictures added to them, however -- as each prototype could have a radically different appearance from the later ships (imagine the error of using a pic of Constitution class USS Enterprise-A picutred representing the USS Constitution -- which was forty years more antiquated). remove all unseen starship prototype pictures -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:12, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Keep article, remove pictures. --Shran 02:30, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

Family Guy

Family Guy
This would probably qualify as an immediate deletion, but whatever. It's a non-canon reference from an non-Trek TV show. And for the record, Dorn didn't voice Worf in the ep (at least I didn't see his name in the credits), although Stewart and Frakes voiced their characters. This fact could be listed in their respective articles. --Shran 02:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was a great bit in family guy, but clearly has no place in memory alpha. Jaz 02:39, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    I agree, it was pretty funny. But, yeah, no place here. :\ Again, delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:41, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Hilarious.. also, non-canon so we only need to wait two days to delete it (if at all, it may qualify for immediate).. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:00, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering if it would be worth creating a page called Star Trek parodies and redirecting content like this there from now on... it seems like a valid meta-Trek subject as long as it doesn't infiltrate the primary content too much, and we've had quite a few attempts to add this type of info in the past. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:47, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the suggestion of having a page where we list trek paradies was brought up before, I like the idea a little more today. Jaf 03:51, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • I remember wondering if anyone had actually been ready to work on one -- i'd still delete this article, but make sure that the Family Guy parodies are in a list on Star Trek parodies -- it would also include MadTV, SNL, In Living Color, even The Wonder Years -- just not linking to any of those. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:55, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Could redirects based at the show titles potentially be useful redirects? I'm thinking less for editing purposes and more for the function of the "go" button in the search box. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 04:23, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm sure we're at a concensus. However- Shran- that was Dorn in it. His name was listed before Stewart's and Frakes's. Just wanted to say that. As for the parodies idea, it doesn't sound bad, but then wouldn't we be allowing a large amount of non-canon info that was never even designed to be part of it? I mean, at least the books were still inside the general idea. So if we were to allow this in, we would get other people saying we should let other things in. -Platypus Man | Talk 04:00, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, then he must have been listed in the four names before the three that included Frakes and Stewart. Hm, I was looking for it, I thought I would have been able to recognize it, but I guess not. --From Andoria with Love 08:30, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't particularly see an issue... as long as the page is relatively self-contained just like a book page, there shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, wikilinks to terms and actors never mentioned in a Star Trek production would be disallowed. And I personally feel there's much room for growth in the meta-Trek realm when it comes to covering subjects from a non-Trek non-critical POV... Wikipedia still puts us to shame in that regard (i.e. References to Star Trek, Society and Star Trek, etc.). Also see the Lucille Ball discussion above. I think with our watchful eyes and ability to prune potentially biased or unfounded statements would make pages like this quite successful and accurate. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 04:23, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm all for a parody page... but I guess my input doesn't matter since it's already been deleted. :P --From Andoria with Love 08:30, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Shran, Star Trek parodies hasn't been ndeleted, neither for the moment has Family Guy redirecting to it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:20, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

Pre-TNG Timeline

Pre-TNG Timeline

Delete, as it is mostly unneeded information and, more importantly, plagarized from here (well, that's the Google cache, the page is not available). Also, I'd be willing to bet you that all the relevant info is already here. As if that weren't enough, it's not wikified, named correctly, or formatted correctly. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I wrote this and was getting ready to flag it, but found that you had already done so. Apparently, we saw it about the same time and did the two things in reverse order. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:54, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quick, fast, and in a hurry! --Shran 09:03, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:46, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • A nice story, but delete.--Smith 14:52, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not an expert on Trek, but when did TNG become the Trek equivalent to the Battle of Yavin? (Everything in Star Wars timelines is measured by how many years before or after the destruction of the death star, since their only calendar is "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.) --Schrei 14:56, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

History of humanoids

History of humanoids
  • This has gone untouched since its inception, It is written more like a story than an article. It either needs a LOT of work, or needs to have a LOT weeded out of it, as in the text which duplicates Dominion history, Interstellar history and the like. --Alan del Beccio 06:34, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there's anything here that can't be found anywhere else. Besides, like you said, it's told more like a story; it's also unformatted & uncited. --Shran 09:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-canon speculation. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this is one of the few cases where I say that even though I see some potential, as stated above, the information we could actually use would already be elsewhere. --Schrei 14:53, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

  • Delete Everything in there can be found other places. "Humanoids" is far to general a topic to make an article on. That's why we have history pages on individual species. Tobyk777 04:17, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Favorite Son redirect

Favourite Son
Misspelled redirect to VOY: "Favorite Son". --Shran 09:20, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- we have no tolerance for British English here. -Platypus Man | Talk 12:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am British, but I wouldn't expect an American website to have British spelling. Tough Little Ship 12:07, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects should be deleted if they make it difficult to locate a similarly named article, might cause confusion, are offensive or simply make no sense (see Help:Redirect). Nothing of this applies here - in fact, it seems to be a very useful redirect for someone searching for that episode without being aware of the "correct" spelling. -- Cid Highwind 12:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Very good points indeed. I guess I'll go with keep, then. --Shran 13:32, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I also agree with cid, Keep Tobyk777 00:01, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of when my redirect from Kubus to Kubus Oak kept disappearing (not sure who deleted it), probably because the only page linking to it was The Collaborator. As Cid said, redirects are for people who don't know the "correct" spelling, and even in cases where it seems unlikely - ie an arguably forgettable character like Kubus or an arguably obvious spelling like this - what harm could it do? Keep. --Schrei 14:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this might be a case for expanding Memory Alpha:List of useful redirects -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:09, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed... while the admins should be more careful when it comes to immediately deleting redirects which could potentially be useful, those who created them should also remember to place a link to them on the useful redirects page so it's certain they were created for a purpose. Keep. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 16:35, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

Folded-space transporter and Principle of Spacefolding

Folded-space transporter and Spacefolding
The first is covered better and more extensively under folded-space transport so at least this needs to be merged and redirected, the second has no real reference in Trek and is not necessary or canon in my opinion. In addition to being a poorly written article. Logan 5 14:35, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. --Shran 17:40, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobyk777 03:41, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

*Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

  • if the folded-space transporter was referred to or seen as a device in and of itself -- than rehabilitate the article to be about the piece of technology itself (while the folded-space transport article will be about the process of transporting itself). If not possible to do so, then delete. if the term "spacefolding" wasn't used in the episode, delete it -- but if it was used, possibly redirect to folded-space transport, otherwise delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement