FANDOM


(Terra 10)
(Terra 10 pictures)
Line 71: Line 71:
   
 
I uploaded this picture today: [[:Image:Terratin colonists.jpg]], only to find this one: [[:Image:Mendant.jpg]] about a minute later. I think the one I uploaded is better quality. What does anyone else think? [[{{ns:user}}:Zsingaya|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Zsingaya</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Zsingaya|''Talk'']]</sup> 20:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 
I uploaded this picture today: [[:Image:Terratin colonists.jpg]], only to find this one: [[:Image:Mendant.jpg]] about a minute later. I think the one I uploaded is better quality. What does anyone else think? [[{{ns:user}}:Zsingaya|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Zsingaya</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Zsingaya|''Talk'']]</sup> 20:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  +
* '''Agreed''', Delete the latter. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 20:23, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:23, October 15, 2005

Template:Vfd

Leslie Shatner

Leslie Shatner
  • Unlike Melanie and Lisabeth, Leslie did not appear in any episodes of Star Trek, so her entry here should be treated the same. What useful references there are, should be added to the William, Lisabeth, Melanie, Lemli, Leslie and corresponding episode pages that they first identified in and that's about it. --Alan del Beccio 06:23, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, delete --Memory 19:37, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Element with no Trek relevance

No Trek relevance, I recommend that the page's content be merged with Johnsonium and deleted. --Defiant | Talk 23:06, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I really don't care if these are kept one way or another. On the one hand, the symbol was used, but with another element. On the other, as you said, there is absolutely no trek relevance (the info is already pretty much on the Johnsonium article, albeit not the atomic number. If Radium, is going to go then I suggest deleting similar articles:
  • --Tim Thomason 23:14, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Memory 19:37, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Relationships

Data & Jean-Luc Picard, Jean-Luc Picard & William T. Riker, William T. Riker & Deanna Troi and their redirects 
We don't single articles created solely for describing a relationship; also, there's nothing here that can't be found on their individual character pages (once they're reverted, anyway). No consensus has been reached at the discussion on Ten Forward, and I for one think this is a very bad idea. Nobody's going to be looking for a specific relationship; they'll be looking for a specific character, from which they will read on their relationships. Besides, there are far too many relationships to create, unless you're will to create Jonathan Archer & Charles Tucker, Jonathan Archer & T'Pol, Benjamin Sisko & Kira Nerys, Kira Nerys & Odo, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Geordi La Forge & Data, and so on and so forth. --From Andoria with Love 20:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - nobody said that we create such articles for every "couple", it's just to embank that articles like William T. Riker are so long that they load eternally. It also prevents from duplication. The readers are directed to the new pages by the links. --Memory 21:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See ten forward for my take on why the argument about duplicate information is pure laziness. But to Memory's arguments: Why can't people just use the table of contents to navigate the page? I don't want to click 500 times to see information about a single person. :P --Schrei 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep see Ten Forward for my reasoning. Jaf 23:25, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • Delete and revert. While a good idea in theory, some of the relationships sections for individual characters could probably be written in a different POV for each character... for instance, the Will Riker/Deanna Troi information is focused more on Will's perspective and actions, rather than Deanna's. The information I'd expect to see on an ideal page about Deanna would be written differently, focusing more on her POV. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 05:45, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it might be best not to handle this whole thing as a VfD-situation. What it boils down to is to either move information from or back to the main article, both of which could be done without decision on this page even in the future. That means we have to find a consensus about these pages in general first, and this page is not the place to do so. So my suggestion is to postpone this voting. If that finds no support, I vote to delete and revert those pages, especially for the reasons SmokeDetector stated. -- Cid Highwind 08:53, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore original articles and delete. Agreed, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker OR Troi and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Speculatory Cruiser types Template

Template:HeavyCruiserTypeClasses, Template:LightCruiserTypeClasses, Template:ExplorerTypeClasses.

This seems to be all of them. A majority, if not all of this, seems to be speculation. I can't think of any (canon, noncanonly these refs are everywhere) refs to these, and all of starfleets ships mission are of "exploration". On other notes, I can say for a fact we've never learned what kind of ships some are, just because their mentioning has been so tiny. Neptune was only mentioned in passing as having old ugly captain's chairs. - AJHalliwell 20:53, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and Delete: These are much more speculatory than the StarshipClass templates and I should've known something was up when I made the pages (it stemmed from an idea to show which Starship replaced another, e.g. Nova replaced Oberth, and Excelsior replaced Constitution, which in itself is speculation). Sorry for the delayed response as I've been sick lately, maybe I've been sick longer than I thought, as I didn't realize the errors in my ways. Oh, and that is all of them, I think.--Tim Thomason 09:18, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

Is there really a canon source for Heavy Cruiser types? Particularly for Akira and Sovereign? Has the term ever even been used? - IP User

  • Agreed, there are no sources that I am aware of that confirm the Sovereign class OR Negh'Var class as being heavy cruisers. I'm sure much of the same can be said about the other templated based on the same premise. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • According to both the Akira class, Sovereign class, and Negh'Var class pages, it lists them as heavy cruisers (under Type: in the sidebar). If the information is incorrect then the pages and the template should be changed accordingly. Memory Alpha was my one and only source when I created this and similar templates, and I don't doubt that some of the information is incorrect.--Tim Thomason 20:22, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Lots of pages need to be cleaned up for things like that, width, height, Type, Phaser class... I'm nominating this, and the others for deletion, and putting it on here cause if I put it on the page it'll appear on all the template pages; and I seem to remember templates used to be put on talk pages anyway. - AJHalliwell 20:39, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thaddius Deming

Thaddius Deming

(yawn) Have we not deleted this before? Is it possible this is just misspelled, and we have deleted it before? Non canon, from the Star Trek: Armada game. Delete and/or merge. - AJHalliwell 00:53, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Pirk

Pirk
Not canon. --Alan del Beccio 00:01, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — THOR =/\= 00:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-canon 2 day quickie delete. --Alan del Beccio 08:05, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Transcendence

Transcendence
  • MA does not catalog articles about unlicensed or illegally published fan-fiction material. The only company ever licensed to publish original, non-reprinted Trek fiction in the past ten years has been Pocket Books and they did not publish a novel of this name, by this author, in any of their series. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:46, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a poster who explained the whole thing on the talk page. There's no reason to be so delete-happy. This is why people are afraid to post things. - User:Keras (added by Alan del Beccio; Please sign your posts when leaving comments.)
    • Comment, this is the first I've heard of "people" being afraid to post things here. Is there a chat forum somewhere on the web that is covering this? To reply to your comment: people are so "delete-happy" here because people start vague pages that other people cannot confirm as legitimate or canon and rather than letting the questionable page marinate for weeks on end unnoticed, it gets posted here -- forcing people to either fix it or trash it. It is, by far, the best way to expose questionable content to a trial by jury, otherwise known as "taking action" or "housekeeping." Obviously there has been a lot of "talk" on the talk page about it, and somebody evidently has the book, but the fact of the matter is -- no one has made any effort beyond "talking" to actually correct the page to prove to the community that it is indeed legitimate in one form or another. However, if indeed what Mike said in the talk page is true and this is an "unlicensed or illegally published fan-fiction material" then it shouldn't be here. That much is clear in our charter of what we currently deem as acceptable content for this website. --Alan del Beccio 00:48, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, you're right about one thing; I've spent so much time arguing that I haven't actually fixed the post. Well, that ends now. I'm going to dig out my copy of the book and fix the page, because you're absolutly right, I should be doing that instead of trying to get other people to do it. I'll do what I can for now, and finish fixing it over the next day or so. However, if I'm going to go to the effort of fixing it, at least take it off the deletion list. -Keras
        • "Pages listed here will be removed after 5 days, unless voted otherwise." --Alan del Beccio 07:26, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, one vote for and one against. Where does that leave us?
            • Since you can't vote in this section (according to policy: user "has been in existence at least one week before the listing", unless you are the original author which you apparently are not), this leaves us with only votes for deletion. I'm reserving my own vote for the moment, but unless you can give us something like an ISBN number (as was requested somewhere), I can't see a good reason to keep. -- Cid Highwind 20:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Terra 10 pictures

I uploaded this picture today: Image:Terratin colonists.jpg, only to find this one: Image:Mendant.jpg about a minute later. I think the one I uploaded is better quality. What does anyone else think? Zsingaya Talk 20:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, Delete the latter. — THOR =/\= 20:23, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.