Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Countries from "The Cage" map

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete the pages listed in the rationale.

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.

Deletion rationale[]

Mongolia
Algeria
Sudan
Argentina
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
Libya
Chad
Niger
Angola
Mali
Korea
Kazakhstan
International Date Line
Greenland
Ethiopia
Arabian Peninsula
Point Barrow
Midway Island
Fairbanks
Wake Island
Gulf of Alaska
Yukon River
Aleutian Islands
Bering Strait
Seattle
Bristol Bay
Hokkaido
Honshu
Kyushu
Madagascar
Guatemala
Beijing

Much like cities only referenced on these maps, which were deleted awhile ago, there is no relevance to Star Trek in this real world information beyond that a map of the world was used briefly at one point in a remastered episode. While that is relevant to Earth, map, and the background section on Antarctica (since the real map was changed in only that regard), it is not a good reason to reference it on/make an article for all 194 countries that will be in the real world map that was used. The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one." Common sense says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that the subject of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The rest of the information is only coincidentally shown/used. - Archduk 3 07:49, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[]

KEEP: They did appear in the show, so technically they are canon. In regards to Saudi Arabia, a long time ago (several years) there was a discussion about the radio jabber Uhura hears as the warhead is descending uncontrollably in "Assignment Earth". In one of the foreign languages, someone apparently says "Libya" and "Arabia". In addition Kazakhstan and Mongolia should definitely be kept since they are large enough to have names visible on the map and are referenced in other trek shows (Outer Mongolia and Baikonur Cosmodrome). On the flip side, I do think a country should not be listed unless someone has gone to the trouble of zooming in on the map and showing the actual name, as was the case with [[Sudan]] and [[Korea]]. I vote keep and even expand if needed. -User:FleetCaptain 7 Feb 15

Sidebar break point.

Delete per Archduk. This seems no different that the situation with the cities and would be no different than saying that since the Earth has appeared in canon that any geographic feature on the Earth should get a page. 31dot (talk) 00:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I've lost track about what is being said [below] :-) but it doesn't seem to be about the deletion discussion. Back to topic, I've reviewed the list of countries more carefully and came up with this list based on strong and weak keeps versus those which should be deleted. I think its clear a blanket deletion is not the best idea.

STRONG KEEP

Mongolia: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries listed. Parent country for Outer Mongolia, mentioned in an episode.
Kazakhstan: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries. The Baikonur Cosmodrome is located there
[[Libya]]: Mentioned in Arabic in Assignment Earth, specifically "Libya on alert"
[[Midway Island]]: Heavy background information, referencing the Battle of Midway upon which a number of Starfleet vessels are named. Also links to a military awards article (Navy expeditionary medal). Due to the work on the B-ground section and that a name is visible on the Cage Map if magnified, the article should be kept.

MEDIUM KEEP

[[Saudi Arabia]]: Fairly visible on Cage map. Line is Arabic or Farsi states "divisions moving towards Arabia" in Assignment Earth.
[[Sudan]]: Fairly visible on the Cage Map with a readable name.
Point Barrow: Fairly visible on the Cage Map. One of the only cities shown in Alaska, after [[Fairbanks]]. Referenced in the main Alaska article.

WEAK KEEP

[[Korea]]: Korean service medal shown in Tomorrow is Yesterday. Graphical enhancement shows the name Korea and Seoul on the Cage map.
[[Bering Strait]]: I think this was mentioned in Star Trek IV. If not, merge with Bering Sea.

DELETE The remainder of the countries and regions are either too small to read either under enhancement or not mentioned or referenced in any way except on the Cage Map. There are a few cities and islands which were extrapolated - those should go for sure. Also remove all capitols from country articles unless they are spoken of or visible on a map.

Thank you all. Nice to see everyone again - User:FleetCaptain (8 Feb)

I'm also of the opinion that blanket deletions generally aren't the best option, and I, of course, don't think we should delete anything that has other references, but since using visibility/readability is actually the problem according to policy (see [below]), I would like to know if you're interested in a different, all encompassing solution; mainly that we keep any page where we have something to say other than it was just seen on a map. - Archduk 3 08:34, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep any page that will say more than "X was seen on a map". 31dot (talk) 11:22, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

At potential risk to life and limb, I'm gonna chime in here a bit. I don't really have a strong feeling either way on this subject, as long as the country or city in question was labeled legibly on a map seen on-screen. I view these little country articles as being very similar to the one or two line articles on personnel that were only seen in a one line entry on an okudagram... I think you could make the same argument either way about those as well. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:15, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I completely agree that if something has other clearly valid references they should be kept. So assuming FC's info is correct (I'm a bit worried that they don't seem to know if S.A. was mentioned in Arabic of Farsi though. What's the source for that assertion anyway?) that means S.A. and Lybia should be kept no matter what is decided in this particular discussion. On the other hand, I don't see how for example the existence of a Korean service medal should have any influence on the decision to keep Korea or not. The irrelevance of completely indirect references like that has been agreed on in numerous deletion discussions.

Now that that's out of the way: Archduk3's alternative proposal on how to deal with this seems like a fairly dramatic policy change. Plus, what counts as nothing else to say exactly? You can always assign those countries to at least a continent and perhaps say they border some ocean too. And it's common practice to once such an article is establish build the web by talking about all mentioned cities in a country, or the country a city is in, etc, even if those connections were not pointed out in canon.

I think we should stick to the conclusions on the previous cage map deletion discussion, that only pages who's label can be identified as what they say on the map as appeared are ok, but that those deserve a Keep. (yes I know that discussion could have been clearer in its conclusion, but it's important to note that without Jörgs proposal there would not have been enough of a consensus for actually deleting the pages back then). I feel that's an elegant solution because it both keeps with the basic idea that everything seen on screen is relevant (no need for yet another special exception one needs to be aware of), but also keeps people from creating articles for every geographical feature larger then a pixel seen on a mate painting of Earth from orbit. Much like how the nazi map of the US was intuitively handled, a feature would have to have a recognizably pointed out label to be identified as an article topic in itself. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:17, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

The line about Saudi Arabia is very hard to understand and actually only says "Arabia" (which is a region) and not "Saudi Arabia" (the country). The quote can be heard when the warhead is descending uncontrollably in Assignment Earth and Uhuru reports all countries on major military alert. I drew up some notes based on my (extremely limited) knowledge of Arabic and also a translation from a native speaker of both Arabic and Farsi. There was also a translation on a Star Trek newsgroup from a veeeery long time ago (late 1990s - one of those alt dot groups from that era) but that's the only place I've seen anything official about what was being said in the quote. -User:FleetCaptain (10 Feb)

My proposal may be considered a "dramatic" change in policy, but I don't think it's much of a change from what we have actually been doing. What I haven't heard here though, I think, is anyone actually arguing that we should include everything on the remastered map, which to be clear is what we should do according to the letter of the policy. The entire map is readable because we have the real map, though none of it was readable on screen (at least I couldn't read any of it without already knowing what the words were suppose to be), so we're talking cities, geographic features, everything. Unless someone wants to argue that the real world map isn't the map that was used, or that changes were made beyond the color for Antarctica, all of it did appear on screen. - Archduk 3 23:49, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Boy it's hard to figure out where on this long page the correct place to post is today. Can't be helped I suppose :D

But to the point : In fact yes, I don't think you cannot be sure the map Lakenhearst dug up is exactly the same as the one used on screen. Little non-obvious edits are made to those kinds of maps all the time between editions, so unless the map was derived from some production source saying that's the map, seeing a label on the high res source map should not imply a completely undecipherable blob on the aired map says the same. I've touched upon this in earlier personal discussion with Lakenheath and in the the technically still ongoing solar system poster deletion discussion, but to little response. But nonetheless I keep believing that's an important caveat to consider.

Now, I've personally not done much work on maps, but I've tried to decipher signs and newspapers and such from time to time. Sometimes with the help of google. And I know this is not policy or anything, but I've adopted a personal and informal rule to keep out of trouble (ie not create articles that are going to be put up for deletion). Basically it goes like this:

if after learning what a blob-ish label says by using a third party source it still just looks like a blob, it's not ok, because you can't verify for certain from on-screen sources that the answer you've got by "cheating" is the right one. However, if after finding out what it says that way you look at what used to be an blob you couldn't read and now you can say "yep, it's definatly that and not something else", then it's ok.

Again, just a personal erring-on-the-side-of-caution style rule, but I think it's a pretty sane way to handle things. And without running afoul of current policy. (one further note on that rule though: of course it's different with things like okudagrams released readable by production sources. Then you just got to trust them). So, in conclusion, I'm not arguing for keeping everything either: just what can be conclusively identified, even by way of cheating.

One more point, unrelated to the above and in response to FleetCaptain: There's already an article for Arabia in general: Arabian Peninsula. If S.A. was not specifically mentioned, I'd say that info fits there better. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:10, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Methodology:

(1.) I checked the date that the remastered version of "The Cage" was broadcast. It was broadcast on 2 April 2009. The map had to pre-date this day.

(2.) I went to the University of Texas website, which had an archive of the The World Factbook maps. The question is, when was it released? One clue is the writing on Antarctica. This writing wasn't on the 2006 release. ([1]) It was on the 2007 and 2008 releases. The minor change between these two maps is the addition of Kosovo. ([2]; [3]) The version after that, released in 2011, shows the addition of South Sudan to the list of countries. I didn't consider the possibility of choosing one map over another, as I will explain in the next step.

(3.) Then, I went to this website, [4]. I did not intend to do all 234 countries and territories, for reasons that 1.) they were too small to be seen on the map (ex. Kosovo) or 2.) they were the victims of cropping (ex. Kiribati). I applied the same reasoning that I had with the NAZI map - although the name was not readable, the contours of the New England states were seen. I did have a count-off point. The articles I created were based on the idea that the viewer could see the contour and color of the country. I am not a color expert, for if I was, I would have included that information as well. In hindsight, I would left out the capital city information. The names were unreadable at a distance, and wouldn't have been seen by the viewer.

(4.) If I could include information from the pre-mastered "The Cage", I would. This information would be in the background notes of the article.

As for where I stand on the issue, I would have to think and act like a casual viewer. If they registered the map as it flashed by on the screen, they would register it as a map of the world. They wouldn't put much more thought into than this, I would think. As an archivist, I am required to judge the merits of the information contained in this map. There have been two standards on this site since 2006 - readability and seeability. I would say that none of the labels were readable, and I would say that the map was seen briefly as it appeared on one of the monitors. It was because of a screencap that we can learn anything about and from the map. By "cheating", I can place label with country. (At the resolution of the screencap on this site, the larger place names are barely legible.) One standard would deny me to the ability to say anything more than, "This is a map of Earth", and the other would give me limited permission to create articles. Personnally, I think it would be important for us as a community to decide which of the two standards that this site should adhere to.Lakenheath72 (talk) 11:16, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

After giving this some considerable thought, I would tend to agree that Capricorn's rule-of-thumb is probably the best suggestion for moving forward. I would like to "encoded" it into the resource policy in some fashion, so as to resolve the conflict between the policy and the cities deletion consensus. To that end, I suggest this be added the resource policy FAQ:


== I think I've identified a painting/map/building/etc. seen in a production, how should this information be used? ==
First of all, good job! Identification of background material can be a arduous process.

There are a few things to consider though before {{ma|Be bold|boldly}} adding the new information to pages:
#Was this material identified by a production source?
#Was this material created for the production?

If the answer is yes to the first question, then it's OK to use. After all, we have to trust production sources.

If the answer is yes to the second question but not to the first, then it's OK to use so long as the material is clearly the material that was used on screen.

If the material wasn't created for the production or identified by a production source, then the parts that are identifiable ''without'' the new material are OK to use. For example, if a real world map of the United States is used on screen and there is a blob-ish label on the western tip of Lake Michigan, you should only add that information to [[Chicago]] if you can be certain that the label doesn't say ''anything other'' than Chicago. Since the ''Star Trek'' universe is different from our own, the assumption should always be that things could be different.

I think this, and a few links to it in the policy itself, should provide a clear enough guideline for future reference. I'm, of course, open to wording changes. - Archduk 3 05:24, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I agree and think it's worded fine. 31dot (talk) 12:50, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a decent guideline in any case, but I'm confused as to the claim that it is my rule of thumb encoded. The way I read that final paragraph it essentially just doubles back on the idea that something needs to be readable, without any kind of help, to be included. Maybe that's just wording though? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the phrase "that are identifiable without the new material"

Also as for more general feedback: the header says it's about "paintings/maps/buildings", but the actual guideline is quite clearly written as being about what to do with labels on setpieces and computer screens. It might be a bit confusing for people comming to the FAQ asking themselves what to do with a painting or building they recognise. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:38, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the text as you see fit. :)

I thought the through line between the three examples was that if you still can't be sure that a painting or building was a paticular painting or building in a shot even if you "know" what it should look like, then you probobly shouldn't say that it was.

A lot of the buildings listed in San Francisco locations are identifiable because they are in the "near" background of an unaltered shot of the city as it exsisted when the film was made. Shots of cities from the AR films are heavily modified though, and any buildings that might be IDed should be because the building itself was discernible, rather than saying a building was there because the location was know to have been in the shot. I'm not suggesting that this has happened, just that the guideline should be able to cover that possibility. - Archduk 3 07:03, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I've done a lot of thinking on the wording, and what I ended up with is another sentence that might be added to the last paragraph. I should note at this point that writing legalese really isn't my strong point, so it's very much something that might need further tweaking. But in any case, how does this sound? (new info in caps)

If the material wasn't created for the production or identified by a production source, then the parts that are identifiable ''without'' the new material are OK to use. IN OTHER WORDS, USING THIRD-PARTY SOURCES AS HELP IN IDENTIFICATION IS OK, ''BUT ONLY'' IF AFTERWARD IT CAN BE CONCLUDED BEYOND A DOUBT THAT THE ON-SCREEN MATERIAL INDEED CONFORMS WITH THE INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE THIRD-PARTY SOURCE. For example, if a real world map of the United States is used on screen and there is a blob-ish label on the western tip of Lake Michigan, you should only add that information to [[Chicago]] if you can be certain that the label doesn't say ''anything other'' than Chicago. Since the ''Star Trek'' universe is different from our own, the assumption should always be that things could be different.

Additionally, in thinking about the wording as much as I have I've also come up with a more cosmetic change that I thought might be good for that paragraph. "wasn't created for the production or identified by a production source" might be replaced with "wasn't identified by a production source or created for the production". In other words, switching the two conditions to have them in the same order as the questions, which I think might improve the digestibility of the information when reading.

Regarding the clarification on buildings by Archduk3: I think that's a good explanation and a good way of doing things, but I still find it hard to figure all that out from the guideline. Maybe the guideline might benefit from a second, building-specific example? -- Capricorn (talk) 21:15, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the page writer should include a link to the third-party source. I did this on the pages I wrote.Lakenheath72 (talk) 14:24, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

I was reading an article in History Today, Decemmber 2014. On page 38, historian Suzannah Lipscomb proposes a Code of Conduct for her fellow historians. On this website, we are playacting as historians. So, what does a real historian consider as rules for her Code? She lists the following:

Use evidence to support your interpretation and seek to understand that evidence correctly.
Do not willfully present evidence out of context, especially not in such a way that the lack of context will render the meaning of the evidence different, unclear or manipulable.
Do not cite evidence from sources that you elsewhere discount.
At best, do not waste a reader's time on unsubstantiated evidence.
At least flag up evidence that is drawn from such sources; do not use it silently.
Triangulate; search ardently for evidence that might undermine, as well as corroborate, your hypothesis.
Avoid assumption creep; do not allow assertions to move from "possibly" to "probably" to "definitely"; do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky.
Do not rely on the secondary assertions of other historians; ad fontes! Go back to the original sources.
Guard against confirmation bias; interrogate the 'facts' anew and bring a fresh analysis to them; do not mould the facts to your interpretation.
Root out and resolve any internal inconsistencies in your argument.
Cite sources so that they can be traced, with page numbers, archival call numbers and publication details.

I think these are good rules. What do others think?Lakenheath72 (talk) 19:41, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Those are good general practices for any scholarly endeavor, and some are already reflected in existing policies. But how is that relevant to the issue at hand? A lot of it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what was discussed on this particular page: if there is a relevant proposal in that I don't see it. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:06, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion is technically still not concluded, I suppose for transparency's sake it might be worth noting that it seems to have come to light that User:Airtram3 (who was involved in the highly relevant previous discussion) is the same person as User:Throwback, involved in this discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:38, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Guideline text added to the resource FAQ. Feel free to tweak it as needed. - Archduk 3 00:22, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding [[Midway Island]], I move to keep it as I've added another (background, non-canon) reference from The Gemini Agent. --LauraCC (talk) 20:43, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no. How many novels something was mentioned in should have no bearing on if it deserves an article here. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:13, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Added a delete tag to [[Belize]], as it also only appears on the map. Not saying I agree with this whole idea of deleting these pages, but that one was missed. --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, March 22, 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar[]

I think this is personal. I have a checkered history on this website and I might have created enemies along the way. Why do I think that it is personal? Let us take two example, Mongolia and Sudan. These pages were created by FleetCaptain. Between 2008 and 2014, the admins Gvsualan, Archduk3, Cleanse, and 31dot were involved in the evolution of one or both of these pages. By the time, I entered the scene, the pages were nearly identical. If there was any problem with their relevance, there was three or four times in which the pages could have been marked for deletion. They weren't. I found a page that listed the countries from largest to smallest. I realized that for small countries, they simply wouldn't be visible. Then I wrote the article so that the reader would know where the country was located, its capital, and where it was seen. (In hindsight, I could have dropped the information about the capital. It wasn't needed.) In the background section, I included information on the map with a link to it. If I could find the country on the older maps, I would include that information, with the relevant maps, in the same section. Never did I intend to do all countries, for some countries are incredibly small and would never appear on the screen. Within a day, instead of fixing the page, Archduk3 put up these articles for deletion. Archduk3, in my talk page, made reference to a page that had been deleted in the past and how I had circumvented procedure when I rewrote the page. I think, as a demonstration of his power and his displeasure, he marked pages I had worked on for deletion. This was done during or after he had blocked me out for an hour. Lakenheath72 (talk) 19:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

From User talk:Lakenheath72:

Lake, you are probably right. What you are seeing is personal. I discovered this a few years ago and will share it with you now. There is a circle of about 5-6 major editors, with an outer circle of about ten to fifteen more, who rule Memory Alpha with an iron fist. These editors have been on Memory Alpha from the very beginning and some of them have been editing non-stop on MA for literally over the past decade. You can not and will not succeed if you go against such persons. If they want an article deleted - it will be deleted. If they want an article written a particular way - it will be written that way. I learned this and moved on. I now have a Master's Degree and write professional published books and papers and only show up on MA rarely. The site has just become too polarized and is clearly run by an elite cadre of editors. Learn this now and avoid many headaches and battles later. Best wishes! -Fleet Captain

From User talk:Archduk3:

A piece of advice

Don't ever link to a page which can be used to defeat your argument, if your intention is to win the argument.

You wrote, The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one."

When you included a paragraph from the resource policy, you deliberately altered it. The paragraph reads, Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock. By altering the paragraph, you altered its intention, so that it would suit your needs. The text, in layman English, says, don't copy the paragraph from a reference source. Say it in your own words and include the information in an appendix of the most relevant page.

By altering the text, you placed all production and reference materials under the same category. This would equate to an user being unable to make an article based on an Okudagram, a dedication plaque, or even the map seen in "Storm Front". These are all production works and all are subject to deletion. That is not what the section is referring to; it is referrring to a smaller subsection of production and reference material.

According to that same resource policy, as the map was seen in the episode, it doesn't fall under the fourth category of reference works created by non-production staff. The resource policy says, Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life. Now, if that map was not seen in the episode, I would not be allowed to write about any portion of the map in the main text of the work. Instead, that material would have to be mentioned in an appendix, and in the most relevant article. To give an example, from another part of Memory Alpha. There is an article about Bekka. Bekka was from a name tag attached to an uniform; the name tag wasn't seen in the film. So, this article should be placed for deletion. Information about this character would have to be placed in an appendix in the most relevant article. I don't know what that is right now. There is nothing against writing articles for portions of the map seen in "The Cage".

This is why you should never ever link to a page, and altered the text from that page, for any intelligent person can discern that you are bending the rules to your favor. He or she will think you are being petulant and are abusing your admin powers to make a point. So, next time, you want to make a point, and CYA, never link to a page. Most people will not bother to find or even read the resource policy. It's buried deep in Memory Alpha.

As for common sense, it is a subjective thing. There is no universal common sense. I have read the common sense policy. It says nothing about the map. It includes a link to common sense at Wikipedia, where it is treated as a topic in epistemology. (In philosophy, this is the theory of knowledge.) People have been debating philosophy for thousands of years, and our civilization is no closer to a consensus on any topic discussed in philosophy. You have your common sense, I have mine. It is ludicrous to expect me to share your common sense. I have learned that concepts like common sense, virtue, vice, and other philosophical topics are abstract. I am not an abstract thinker. I am a concrete thinker.

I can understand one point from that common sense page, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to make a point. When you take the steps to mark a page for deletion, when you block a user for an hour, you are being disruptive to Memory Alpha. Why did you do that? Because I wrote a page that had been deleted. Well, I can do that, for I can ignore a rule if I think that I am improving the site. That is in the common sense rules, and on the main Wikipedia page.

Again, if you are making a point about not ignoring consensus, why would you include a link to a page that says I can ignore a rule if I believe that my action will work to the betterment of the wikia? Again, CYA by not including the link.

You may not like articles about cities and countries from the maps. There is nothing against it in the rules. If I want to write articles about everything on the maps, the rules say I can. If you had never made the links, then I wouldn't be at liberty to say that.Lakenheath72 (talk) 09:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. In this case, there is also a previously agreed to consensus that such pages are not appropriate. It would be like saying that every geographic feature of the Earth should get a page because the Earth has been seen in canon. Having many duplicate pages that say the same thing(X appeared on a map) and only that thing harms the information as it makes it harder to find.

Archduk had every right to block you; you created the disruption, he ended it. Despite what you are told on your userpage by a disgruntled editor, there is no "elite" group here. If you don't like the previously agreed to consensus, you need to convince those already here to change their mind. This is the case on any wiki project, especially Wikipedia(with potentially hundreds of thousands to convince)31dot (talk) 12:05, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe in conspiracies; however, when I hear a person described as "disgruntled", I am more inclined to believe there might be a grain of truth in what the individual is saying. That word has been used by corporations, governments, and other organizations in the past to discredit an individual. In a number of cases, it has been found that the individual did have valuable insight into what was happening and felt that others needed to know. They were vindicated in the public arena. I am not saying that this will happen with FleetCaptain. What I am saying is that using that word has increased the probability that I will be more weary of you and the other admins.

As well, I do believe that individuals will alter or interpret documents in such a way that it will suit their needs. Archdu3 changed the words of the text to meet his needs. He has broadened the scope of what was discussed on that page to include all production material and reference material. Before it was limited to materials that existed outside the scope of the episodes and films. With his alteration, he has added things that are within the scope of the episodes and films. This includes Okudagrams, dedication plaques, and other props and/or graphics made specifically for Star Trek. The lack of correction on your part strongly implied that you are in agreement with him. By expanding the scope of this rule, a precedent has been set. A deletion procedure for these items may not occur today or tomorrow; however, it doesn't rule out the possibiity that it may happen in the future. I don't feel that an assurance that this won't happen will assuage my concerns. (There happens to be a fairly large number of pages that fall into the duplicate pages that say the same thing; I constantly see an admin doing a "copy+edit" on the wikia activities page. Alone, I can think of the pages that I made for the German map that meet this barest of criteria. If the admins were sincere about ending the scourge of duplicate pages, they would mark those pages for deletion and the admin who does the "copy+edit" would be told to stop that nonsense.)

The rules governing wikias are open to interpretation. The wikia says that a person can ignore a rule for improvement or maintenance. There was no mention of a consensus. (Hell, I don't remember reading anything about any thing called a consensus in the rules. It's probably buried deep in that manual or the idea was formed after the manual was written.) This page on the main Wikia page linked directly to the common sense page which linked to the page about it on the main Wikia site. Common sense falls into the category of epistemological items (the theory of knowledge). Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. If they can't reach a consensus, how am I, a non-philosopher, expected to know what is common sense? I know how to act civil - be respectful, listen to others, don't steal, etc. I don't know how to act common sensical. That is above my station.

My point to Archdu3 was this, don't weaken your argument by making links to pages that can be used against you. Keep that stuff unknowable. Not many people will bother with those pages as they are buried deep in Memory Alpha. And, unlike a real manual, there is no index. Either you know where things are or you don't. It takes considerable effort to find anything. I know, for it took me hours to wade through the whole thing. I am determined and focused; others will be less so. I think he estimated that I wouldn't bother with the whole clicking the link business and reading the pages. I think he thought he was more intelligent than me. He underestimated me. I have an intelligent mind; I can see what he is doing. I don't need to believe in conspiracies or the words of a "disgruntled editor" to know that someone is asserting his dominance and control and is attempting to put me in my place.Lakenheath72 (talk) 13:37, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

And I don't need to read a large wall of text to know that you would rather tell us how brilliant you are and we should just bow down and accept what you are doing than work with those here to either understand why things are the way they are, or to convince us that what you want is better. I will restate this since you don't seem to address it: You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. If everyone just ignored the rules when they wanted, rules would have no meaning whatsoever. We all have ideas about what would be improvements, but we must work with each other. 31dot (talk) 14:36, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss the Cities resolution. The resolution was, 'Deleted' as not visible in canon. If it is later possible to see these or other similar places(through Blu-ray, for example) these can be restored. They weren't deleted because they were duplicate pages; they were deleted because they were unreadable to the people who bothered to write an opinion. We could debate the merit of many pages on this wikipedia which were created after the issue of visibility was solved, either because high definition improved clarity or another source was available that had the material. If we go by the new resolution, many pages on this wikipedia would have to be deep-sixed.

Let's talk about ignoring the rule. The full section for Common Sense reads,

Memory Alpha has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.

Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (for example, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to prove a point). The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter.

Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the RADAR, and not be noticed at all.

The person who wrote that last line had little respect or love for your beloved consensus. They were advising the reader to be a pro at "immproving" the wiki, so that the community and, especially, the admins wouldn't know that changes had been made. Improving is such an open word isn't, it? One person's improvment is another person's vandalism. So, from its inception, this wikipedia had a clause which was against community awareness and participation.

Oh, if you can't be bothered in reading my posts, then keep your "mouth" zipped. I am not of the culture that texts their messages. I am of an older generation where people actually knew how to write complete paragraphs and didn't communicate in 150 letters or less because of space limitations.Lakenheath72 (talk) 16:33, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'm hardly texting here, but being concise is helpful, too. And I won't keep quiet any more than you will. I guess the rest of us should all just go home and let Lakenheath72 take over, since they know all about this place. 31dot (talk) 16:41, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

It's up to Lake if wants to pursue this, but we really should put the above comment back on his talk page where it belongs. That was general advice about MA (which I stand by) and really has no bearing at all on this deletion discussion and the merits of keeping the country articles. -Fleet Captain

For what its worth, in the radio chatter from "Assignment Earth", I confirmed that one of the voices says "Libya on alert" and another says "Divisions moving towards Arabia". The most predominate language is Arabic; Farsi can also be heard. -FleetCaptain

comment: or actually two comments, one relevant to the substance of the discussion, and one about the tone:

first of all; I think this should depend on the conclusions reached in the previous discussion, and I feel that discussion hinged on Jörgs comment that those blobs of text at least needed to be able to be conclusively confirmed to be what one thinks they are, without the help of a source map as a legend. So, it hasn't really come up yet, but is that the case for these articles? Are they based on how it is clear on the bluray images that what one may think the labels say are indeed what they say? If so, the articles should stay. If not, they should be deleted.

Or at least if they were not clearly mentioned otherwise as Fleetcaptain suggests. If that's true then at least those few articles have my keep vote for they were as clearly mentioned as anything else.

And regarding the specific criticism that if the Earth was seen every distinguishable feature should get an article, I think there's a crucial difference between things that were recognisably labeled, and things that were not. It's the difference between places being specifically featured, or the producers just wanting to feature "the Earth".

Secondly, here comes the harsh infighting critique: the only person I saw make things personal here was Lakenhearst, boldened by Fleet Captain. Although others were dragged down to this level because they felt the need to respond. The notion that just because you are disgruntled, people must be out to get him is completely nuts. This is about just not getting the essence of certain guideline, and then descending into paranoia while trying to understand what is going on. It's dangerous to discuss things on anything else but merrit, and on that count I feel Lakenhearst has derailed this discussion. The attacks on the validity of even having policy just because he finds it hard to get a handle on, the subsequent attempted to get his win through populist arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion, and the deeply cynical advise (a gotcha-moment which only exists in the writer's mind, written with an oh-so-misguided air of smug moral superiority) on which links his perceived opponent shouldn't mention as to better suit their perceived agenda, are simply beyond the pale.

Regarding the specific allegation that longstanding articles were targeted only after Lakenhearst started touching them. Well, editing a page just makes it visible on the recent edit page, which might invite further scrutiny, even from people that hadn't realised there was a problem before. As unfortunate as it may be, pages that shouldn't exist keep existing for a long time all the time. I for one edit pages I'm not completely sure should exist all the time; as long as they aren't brought up for deletion and then voted out it's my mission as a Memory Alpha editor to improve them. I also know that I end up fixing stuff in articles Lakenheath touched more then the work of any other editor, for no more sinister reason then that his edits show up on my watchlist a lot. If I were a lot more paranoid I might also suspect that Sulfur had it in for me, because they keep fixing spelling mistakes I made. But I don't, I know Sulfur just specialises in correcting exactly the type of errors I make a lot. VOY: "The Voyager Conspiracy" seems relevant here, you can examine page histories and edit patterns so closely that you may arrive at out of touch conclusions. There's an axiom that puts it more harshly then I would but still merits mentioning : Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:04, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Here's a timeline:

In 2006, articles were created based on the maps from "The Cage". These pages were selected for deletion by 31dot. The partipants in this discussion were 31dot, Airtram3, Mordor, Jorg, and Capricorn. Five people. The issue was that they weren't readable. The resolution was that these pages should be deleted as they weren't visible. If they became visible in high definition, then they should be restored. (A new map was introduced in "The Cage".)

In 2008, the first of these country articles appeared. They were written by FleetCaptain. Over the next seven years, they were edited by the admins. Using the history of these articles, I can see the evolution of these articles. Before I began work on them, they were duplicate pages. The instigator for this deletion process, Archduk3, was an editor in 2010 and 2011 for Belize, Guatemala, Algeria, Mongolia, Sudan, Kazakhstan, and Ethiopia.

In 2015, I was working on the cities mentioned in "The Neutral Zone". I get a short message from User47: Stop (it was a link to the long buried cities discussion). Then, I worked on the countries. During the process, I rewrote a page that had been previously deleted, and I rewrote the Osama bin Laden page.
- 31dot's version:Osama Bin Laden was a Middle Eastern terrorist leader in the 1990s and 2000s. After Jonathan Archer restored a damaged timeline, Osama Bin Laden could be seen in the time stream as the timeline realigned itself. (ENT: "Storm Front, Part II")

- My version: Osama Bin Laden (1957-2011) was a [[Saudi Arabia]]n Islamic militant leader in the 1990s and 2000s. He was the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. He was killed by the American military. After Jonathan Archer restored a damaged timeline, Osama Bin Laden could be seen in the time stream as the timeline realigned itself. (ENT: "Storm Front, Part II")

I have Safari browser. I can highlight a word or set of words so I can look up the word. This is the definition of Osama Bin Laden.

- Dictionary definition: Osama, bin Laden. (1957-2011), Islamic militant, born in Saudi Arabia. He was regarded as the founder of Al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the attacks, he went into hiding, but was tracked down and killed by US special forces in Pakistan.

06:37 February 7, 2015 One Hour Block for Lakenheath 72. (Circumventing a deletion consensus.)
06:44 February 7, 2015 My talk page gets this message.

Stop. - User47 (talk) 03:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't a suggestion, you are circumventing the deletion policy by adding material previously "deleted." The consensus must be changed first. Also, you've going to have to explain where the information you've added to Osama Bin Laden was in the episode, because if it's not it shouldn't have been added. - Archduk 3 06:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

07:15 to 07:22 February 7, 2015 Archduk3 adds 12 pages to the deletion process and reverts Osama Bin Laden to 31dot's version.

07:49 February 7, 2015 Writes a deletion rationale paragraph.
- Sentence 3 of his paragraph reads: The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one."
- Actual text of above sentence (which is a paragraph) reads: Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock.

What are these texts? Reference works by production staff, Material used day-to-day by production staff, Other information derived from production staff, and Reference works created by non-production staff. These materials were listed under supplementary resources. According to the rules, information from these resources belongs in an appendix, or as a background note.

By altering the paragraph for his deletion rationale, he has changed what has been the policy since 2013. According to the history page, Archduk3 moved page User:Archduk3/Canon to Memory Alpha:Resource policy without leaving a redirect: merging. The words he changed in his deletion rationale are the words he wrote for himself on his page and then made policy.

By altering the paragraph, he has now included both valid and supplementary information.

I have examined the history of this page. In 2006, when the cities discussion was held, the issue of visibility was discussed in the resource page. From 2006 to 2013, the policy was,

Secondary research information could deal with a valid resource, yet be derived from another resource. Verifiable information about a "Star Trek universe" resource that can be added to an article body (for example, a name or spelling from a script, but not included in filming; or a registry number detailed to a model at the time of filming but not visible in the final product).

In accordance with the canon policy, secondary research cannot be cited as a valid resource – it should be added in the "background" section of the article, after the valid resource it pertains to is cited properly. For example:

The ship's dedication plaque specified that it was an Oberth-class vessel. (TNG: "The Naked Now")

The information about class and registry wasn't directly visible in the episode, but a closer examination of the plaque was included in Starlog issue #XX, where the background art was published.

::The valid resource is the episode, "The Naked Now", but the secondary research that gives us the information is a print of the set artwork, which is not perceivable from viewing the episode, but is part of the actual production material used in filming. ::If the resource being cited is not part of a Paramount production (for example, a photo published instead by a member of the production staff), then a link to some aspect of that resource should be included. : The starship had three ports on its starboard side. (TNG: "Gambit, Part I")

The information about the ship isn't visible in the episode, but is derived from a photograph taken of the filming model by This Reputable Website's Owner.

However, the policy was changed by Archduk3 in 2013, so the matter of visibility was no longer valid. One of his lines in Reference works created by non-production staff states, Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life. Captainmike spoke about the ability of the viewer to read the text, and Archduk3 spoke about the ability of the viewer to see an object. Under Captainmike's definition, there could be no articles based on the map. Under Archduk3's definition, there could be articles based on the map for it was seen by the viewer. By expanding the definition, as he did in the deletion rationale paragraph, many more items are now subject to the sight test.

- Sentence 4 of his paragraph reads: Common sense says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that the subject of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The text of Common Sense is above; there is no mention of a map.

02:33 February 8, 2015. I received an e-mail from FleetCaptain on my talkpage. I didn't pay much attention to it, and I didn't respond to it.

09:14 February 8, 2015. I sent a post to Archduk3, which is posted above. I have learned that people are idiots when it comes to technology. Instead of being an idiot, be smart about how you use technology. Use it to your advantage. Hypothetically, if I was Archduk3, I would not have made links to those pages for I didn't want my rationale undermined and have questions raised about what I am doing. I would have said words to the effect of, this information is located here. Most people would have been discouraged from investigating the matter, and accept at face value what the admin is saying.

31dot, who had been to my talk page, responded. There is ongoing discussion. Archduk3 moves the discussion to this page. (I don't know what the custom is in your country, Capricorn. In my country, corporations and governments use psychological warfare against former employees. One of the terms used is "disgruntled employee". It is used to discredit the employee.)

17:25 February 8, 2015. Archduk3 moves the post from FleetCaptain from my talkpage to this page. 31dot thinks that I agree with FleetCaptain; I don't. By moving the post, he has moved the post out of its context and has "posioned the well".

My point about common sense is that it is a philosophical concept, with its origins dating back to Aristotle. Philosophy is abstract thinking; some individuals are abstract thinkers and can understand what common sense means. They can debate the various theories of common sense with other like-minded people. Then there are people like me who are concrete thinkers. I am incapable of compreheding common sense. It is not a negative to say this. The architecture of each peron's brains is unique, and how this architecture is shaped and how it works is created by the software in our genes (the epigene).Lakenheath72 (talk) 00:03, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Did you really need 10,000+ characters to say whatever it is you are trying to say above? These sorts of posts are bordering on disruptive, as is calling Archduk an idiot. I'm not even really sure what it is you are trying to say. 31dot (talk) 00:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with you not having common sense, but why you would then weight in on a discussion that hinges on a common sense policy, and expect to be taken serious baffles me. And furthermore, your whole analysis still hinges on the very dubious assumption that all those facts are best explained by the fact that people are out to get you. You're implying Archduk3 is an idiot for not bringing the principles of psychological warfare to this wiki well enough (that is, you atribute anything you can to malice, and dismiss anything pointing against malice as incompetence). You've done a great job completely derailing this discussion. You've not voted, and you've brought no argument except ad hominem ones. Are we to surmise you're acting in bad faith too, trying to answer psychological warfare in kind? -- Capricorn (talk) 01:07, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think 31dot is capable of reading what what I wrote. I think he is clouded by his disdain for FleetCaptain. I don't know what happen between them; I don't care. I do know that 31dot read FleetCaptain's post on my talkpage, before he responded. You think I am the only one who is taking this personal. What about this comment from 31dot - And I don't need to read a large wall of text to know that you would rather tell us how brilliant you are and we should just bow down and accept what you are doing than work with those here to either understand why things are the way they are, or to convince us that what you want is better. This is bloody well personal.

The common sense page was written by Renegade64. The last sentence of that page can be used as a weapon of mass destruction against the community, or consensus, by an editor with a vendetta. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the RADAR, and not be noticed at all. If an editor has the desire and the know-how, they can stealthy undermined the illusion that there is a community here. The Memory Alpha Resource is written so as to discourage investigation. This isn't about common sense; this is about being a member of a community. How do we behave in a community? That is called civility. (Common sense is defined as, "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters". What is good? Who defines what is good? What is sound? Who defines what is sound?) This is about reforming the rules and how rules are altered for an agenda.

There are many idiots on this page. (FleetCaptain doesn't count in this discussion; he has been discredited by 31dot.)

Archduk3, who doesn't know how to use technology to his advantage. Then he uses the nuclear option - he says that he wants to clear the mess, so what does he do? He removes a private correspondence from an user's talk page and places it on a public discussion page, and he moves an entire discussion on his page to the public arena.
Capricorn, who is easily duped by Archduk3's maneuvers
31dot, who is indoctrinated in psychological warfare and raised the credibility of a post by FleetCaptain by calling him a "disgruntled editor", and is ignorant of his own rules
Me, the biggest idiot, for taking on a battle wagon named 31dot. Where is the other battle wagon? Where is Archduk3?Lakenheath72 (talk) 02:03, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did read that whole rambling incoherent block of text, and the rest of the page, and I don't count any idiots, only a single overtly insecure editor. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:15, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Where is Archduk3 indeed. That guy has some explaining to do. Too bad he was busy this weekend and couldn't get any one of the several previous replies he started writing finished before events had moved past the point where the reply would have been relevant. That, by the way, was part of the reason I needed an hour at 12:30am (central US time) on a Friday night to attempt to forestall something like this and this from happening again, not the discussions mind you, but a list of over 20 pages with deletion tags on them. My mistake for trying to learn from the past.

I would like to address a couple of things before I get into my thought process and what I hope to accomplish with this discussion, since these things have been called into question.

This is a wiki, not a wikia or wikipedia. One is the correct term. The next is a company that has tricked anyone using their corporate brand in the manner above into becoming a marking mouthpiece, and they already own our words in every way that matters, there's no reason to let them truly own them. The third is easily the most popular and known wiki, but we're not copyright compatible, so the comparison is strongly discouraged.
I linked back to the policies I quote, and I make it clear when I take something out of context via "...", because I want the best argument to win, not necessarily my own. I happen to be pretty biased in favor of my argument, since I happen to believe I'm right, but I've changed my mind before, and will again.
The history of the resource policy page is mostly the never enacted "research policy," since the former was actually split off of the content policy, then "canon policy," that the latter was intended to replace. The research policy text was incorporated into the history since parts of it were influential on the split. For the record though, the text I quoted above was already present in the canon policy at the end of 2006, three years before I was even here, so I didn't write it.
It may come as a surprise to at least one of you, but I would rather have Lakenheath72/Throwback editing rather than not, since the thousands of edits done since he choose a new user name attest to the sheer amount of work he can get done in a short amount of time. That amount of activity does mean that things that might be missed or uncorrected immediately when other users are editing have to be spotted and corrected before they could quickly spread to all the similar pages when Lakenheath72 is editing, least the de facto standard become an undesirable one. Simply put, more attention is paid in the recent changes to his edits, and I can see how that might seem like there is something more personal about that, but there really isn't.
I would rather have FleetCaptain editing as well for what it's worth. The last year IMO has seen significant improvement in the "polarization" here, and if the desired outcome is for more decisions to be made by people other than the usual suspects, those other people have to be here when decisions are being made.

My rational and what I hope to accomplish here is to solve the conflict between the original consensus to delete the map's city articles, the use of that consensus as a guideline in other discussions, and the actual resource policy text that states "Visual material seen in Trek universe resources can be supplemented by clearer images of the identical material seen (for example, production art identifiable as being the same as shown on screen but more legible) if the image is from a valid supplementary resource or otherwise generally and publicly available from a verifiable production source...[and that this material]...may be referenced in in-universe articles as citations..." The letter of the policy makes it pretty clear that every single detail on any map used on screen can be included in, or as, an article, since visibility/readability isn't really a factor if we have a production source. My problem with this is that I don't think having 194ish "this country was seen on a map of the world" pages/references because a real map was used is helpful when we could just say on a few pages "a map of the world made by X circa Y was used in episode Z and can be seen clearly at this link." My solution to that problem was to see if I could change the consensus from a readability test, which is the problem, to a relevancy test, which IMO would solve the problem with the minimal amount of change to the actual operation of the wiki. - Archduk 3 08:34, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I would also actually rather have people here than not, but name-calling and other personal attacks are unacceptable(as I'm sure Archduk would agree). 31dot (talk) 11:25, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Admin resolution[]

Deleted all but:

Mongolia, merged and retained lk as redirect to Outer Mongolia
Arabian Peninsula, renamed and retained lk as a redirect to Arabia
Point Barrow, converted to rw article.

--Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:03, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

Images[]

Follow-up to Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Countries from "The Cage" map, the following images are unused filse of blobs snipped from large maps that are currently used on MA to signify countries now deleted:

File:East Africa.jpg
File:Korea.jpg
File:Madagascar.jpg
File:PacificCloseup.jpg

They are all from the original "The Cage", so they are retconned as well. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:14, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Tom (talk) 22:04, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

Deleted --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:57, July 20, 2017 (UTC)