Suggestion to merge[]
So, here we have a planet that was drawn to represent a world from a non-trek story, the image later recycled as a set piece. Am I the only one who is unconfortable with the leap of taking that planet name? It would be as if a trek episode reused stock footage from say, star wars, and we then took it as evidence that there was a Tatooine in the star trek universe. - Capricorn (talk) 10:31, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
- In "Yesterday's Enterprise", we have a map depicting the location of the star/star system Denkir. Years later, on Ex-Astris-Scientia, this world is identified as Denkir II by Rick Sternbach. (There is another planet in the system: Denkir IV. Sternbach went to the effort in creating a phylogenetic chart for the aquatic life forms that lived on that plant, which was put on display in a nursery in "The Child". I am opposed to merger.Throwback (talk) 12:03, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Sternbach may have named it that, but he didn't do so for Star Trek- which means that he was only identifying it with the name he used before using the image on Star Trek. Leaving that aside, it's good background information, but if the name wasn't used in canon, the article cannot be titled that. 31dot (talk) 12:10, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
- ...but if the name wasn't used in canon, the article cannot be titled that. We have more than one article on this web site where it's name wasn't mentioned in canon. I wrote the article based on my understanding of Memory Alpha policy. From Memory Alpha policy - The only exception to the exclusion of production or reference material not seen on-screen from the main body of an article is for naming items or people that were seen on-screen but not referred to by name. For example, names such as Livingston and Neural were not mentioned on-screen, but are derived from production sources. The primary reason for this is to avoid creating a large number of "unnamed" subject pages when an official name already exists. In the event that any of this information contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence. I consider Rick Sternbach a "production source". I notice that you didn't address the existence of Denkir in the canon and its possible connection to Denkir II and Denkir IV, plus the life forms on this planet. I would like to have your thoughts on that connection.Throwback (talk) 12:43, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Leaving the name issue aside for the moment, we don't actually know this is a real planet(in-universe), as it was only seen in the painting. For all we know the planet is purely a creation for the painting and is not based in reality. I now amend my previous statement to say that this should not be merged, but it should be rewritten as an article about the painting, not the planet. By your own words, any connection to Denkir IV and any Denkir system is "possible" unless someone said it was a real planet, since it wasn't named in canon. 31dot (talk) 12:55, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
I forgot about Denkir IV, but whatever is decided for this page should probably also apply to that one. As for Throwback's first comment, Denkir was homaged a number of times, and at least one of these homages, the Denkiri Arm, is very probably not related to any of the others, given it's location. So I'd say connecting different mentions would be sketchy to say the least. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:02, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree with 31dot and oppose a merge to unnamed planets, since this is just a painting, we have as little confirmation about this being a painting of a real planet as we have about its name. I would also support simply rewriting these two articles as articles about the paintings without assuming they depict actual planets. I think the names of these articles are okay since they are the names given by Sternbach as long as there is a note in the bg saying that they were not named on-screen and the connection to the Denkir star system is not confirmed. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:09, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
Merge suggestion, redux[]
Sorry for the necromancy, but it appears Throwback no longer is no longer opposed to turning the articles into articles about paintings. That means a consensus between the participants of the old discussion. I'm going to wait a while in case there are any more new ideas, but if no one comes out against this, I would like to change the articles. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:39, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
Since no one objected, I've changed the pages -- Capricorn (talk) 13:09, July 9, 2014 (UTC)