This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Marcus system, Elba system, Daran system, Gamma Vertis system,".

  • 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.

Initial discussionEdit

It had been my understanding that we didn't have a separate star system article about a planet's star system if there was no specific reference to the system itself- in other words, we didn't have star system articles by assumption- to avoid duplication, especially if there was only one planet involved. A star can be named differently than the planets in its system as well, such as our own star system, or for other reasons(Dytallix B is not in the Dytallix system, nor is it the 2nd planet). I'm asking just because there have been a few of these articles created recently.--31dot 09:25, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't by assumption, that's fine, I just wanted to get myself straightened out.--31dot 09:30, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right - with the additional reason that an article about an "unknown star system" would most likely hold no information that is not already available via the planet article, making the article unnecessary. Do you have examples of those recently created articles? -- Cid Highwind 09:50, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much the ones currently at the top of the New Pages list. I can be more specific later today, no time right now.--31dot 09:57, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Throwback, who created most of these new articles, to stop while we discuss here. There's also stuff like this edit, which doesn't create another star system article, but adds assumptions about its name (and also adds an unnecessary, empty sidebar). There may also be old speculation in other articles - for example, the article Maravel was just created, probably based on info from Maravel dragon. Not sure if there really is a basis for the "M class" statement, or the name of the planet in general. -- Cid Highwind 12:24, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think you get the idea but I'll throw out a few examples here: Marcus system, Elba system, Fabrina solar system, Daran system.--31dot 20:32, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

As for my two cents, I definitely think we shoudn't have articles on systems we only infer or suspect as existing. They have little use, and they're not in a strict sense canon. -- Capricorn 23:37, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, there's also the case of Paraagan II to ponder. There is a Paraagan species, but from the episode it can more or less be assumed that they are not from the same system as Paraagan II. And then there's the whole issue of these pages implying there's a planet called for example Marcus I, while for all we know it might be Marcus Prime. Though that's not exclusive to non-canon system pages-- Capricorn 23:45, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Information about the Fabrini system comes directly from the episode. As for Lactra VII, the assumption is built into this wiki. If this assumption is wrong, this will require going through all the articles and performing the necessary modifications. Of course, this will require the deletion of all the first planets, second planets, third planets, etc. pages. Another issue I have seen recently is how much information do we permit from the real world to be entered into the main body of the text entries. I have seen entries with information in them that was never in the canon - the number of stars in a system, the type of the stars in the system, and the distance of the star from Sol. With the exception of Sol, I don't think it's possible to equate the fictional stars with their real world counterparts. The writers weren't interested in being factual in their use of real world stars. We have systems that couldn't support life having inhabited worlds. if you want to delete Maravel, Marcus system, Elba system, and Daran system, go ahead.(Throwback 01:29, September 9, 2011 (UTC))

You may be right about some of the other situations you mention- but those are other issues that can be discussed elsewhere. I can accept that a planet's number almost always refers to its position in its system- my biggest concern is that we are creating articles that 1) about things that aren't mentioned(the system itself); 2) things that we don't know the name of; and 3) are just duplicates of the article about the one planet we do know of in that system. --31dot 01:52, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Going forward, I will be very careful about these articles, and attempt to keep them strictly in the canon. I won't be creating new pages for the systems, unless we have more information on the system itself.Throwback 03:12, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in, Throwback. :) I suggest to go through Throwback's edits of the last days and bring up all newly created system articles for (standard, not speedy) deletion. If there's one where the name actually has been mentioned in canon, we can catch those at that point, and delete the others. All other topics that this discussion brought up should be moved to more appropriate talk pages. -- Cid Highwind 06:50, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
I really hate suggesting to make this task a magnitude bigger, but given the sheer frequency of non-mentioned systems in the star system category, there seems little logic in just limiting this to Throwback's articles. Throwback was just going by the same reasoning people have been going by for ages, and the non-Throwback articles really aren't that much less likely to not have been mentioned. :-s Capricorn 10:52, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest more for deletion... but please don't just add all of them to the same deletion discussion, because those blanket deletions are a nightmare to track later. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:07, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Wel,as again I don't have much time right now, but I have done a quick survey earlier and I have about a dozen jotted down somewhere, and I'll see if I can find more if I have some time. If I can't add them to the existing deletion discussion, then how exactly do you suggest proceeding Cid? -- Capricorn 02:24, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't even know If I will be home in the following days, so I'm just gonna go ahead and paste my list here for now -- Capricorn 03:14, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
(Based on transcripts and (if on st-minutiae) scripts of cited episodes, these systems were not mentioned on-screen:)

Deletion rationale Edit

Per "this discussion" [merged above], I am proposing the above articles for deletion on the grounds of not being specifically mentioned. There might be a few more which I don't have time to add right now. --31dot 09:19, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

I've deleted the initial four I suggested, due to the lack of comment and Throwback's agreement with it. I have held off on deleting the others listed above as they have existed for a little while, and Cid has raised tracking concerns. If we want to separate them out, we can discuss them separately. If not, I will delete them later.--31dot 12:17, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I do share Cid's concerns though, in this case I checked each planet myself as I nominated them, but discussing so much pages at once is not ideal (and there are more articles yet). Separating them is probably the only fair way to manage this. -- Capricorn 17:09, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

I'll archive this page for now, and use it as a reference to create pages for the above listed articles gradually. --31dot 10:47, October 10, 2011 (UTC)