Changes: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Revision as of 00:13, 5 December 2005

Template:Vfd

Q-created reality

Because of the below statement, I figured I would post this here. I'm not sure I was ever fond of the article either. Especially since no one actually did anything with it, leaving it as it is in its current state rather meaningless. What is not to say that "Q's created realities" were not "real" in the first place? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I originally created this article when I made an edit to Sheriff of Nottingham when it referred him to as part of a Fantasy Game, when Q said otherwise. I felt 'Q Created reality' was best description. Since Q's can create their own reality at will, I felt it would be an interesting central article for more on the subject. I do not like the direction this article has taken, I the article should be reverted back to [this version] which follows the original intent of the article. If the names are not good enough, they can be changed from that version. Revert, keep --TOSrules 08:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Q-created reality fit into this (plot type) group as well? --FuturamaGuy 07:02, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. That page is about "realities" experienced by the crew, while the others are dubious meta-classifications (does every episode containing a first contact have a "first contact plot"?). If you want to discuss the possible deletion of that page, please create another section here. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think a "List of places created-by / recreated-by / visited-with-the-help-of Q" would be a very valid list article. This article is currently "meaningless" because a list consisting of links with invalid names was removed without being replaced by a list of "correct" links: for example Sherwood Forest, Afterlife (don't we already have a list of various "afterlifes" somewhere?), the planet Q created in Hide and Q, the various representations of the Continuum itself, the Big Bang, the post-atomic horrors courtroom, Starbase Earhart and so on... Instead of simply deleting this article, we should instead discuss a better suiting title and then move. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I support a pagemove -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Defense sail

Defense sail: Not cited, nor do I recall this term ever being used on DS9 to descibe what it is this article is attempting to descibe. If anything, this should just be incorporated into the design of Deep Space 9. --Alan del Beccio 12:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, they were just called pylons. Delete or move to pylons (if that is the official term). --From Andoria with Love 19:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nope... Unless it's a really obscure alternate-name kind of reference or something that came from the technical manual. Weyoun 04:58, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Merge or rewrite: I recall that the sails were seen in use during the DS9 pilot, Emissary, and again in further detail "The Way of the Warrior". Though indeed they did not mention them in the episode verbally, there is a website which speculates (probably correctly) that John Eaves created the upgrades to DS9's weaponry that were used in "The Way of the Warrior", but did not design the original weapons used in the series pilot. Although his original designs were not all used, most of them were accepted and some modified to better fit. They had to construct closeups of the pylon/sails to display the new weapons and of all the upgrades, only two emplacements were seen on-screen being used. The page's source is speculative to me and it called the sails in question "weapons sails" as well as "defense sails". However, the article page for Deep Space Nine links to the "defense sail" article.

At this time, the only information I can find on these modifications has been found in FSD: Starship Concept Art: Arming Deep Space Nine. And seeing as the sources aren't very well defined or confirmed, the article here should be rewritten, merged, or just deleted. The link from the DS9 article should be modified as well. generally, I say it needs to be rewritten. Deletion should be a last option. --MKSuleth 02:03, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, if the term defense sail was not used, then it really isn't the appropriate term to have cited here. Additionally, this so-called "defense sail" was also the location of the tractor beam emitter, if I recall correctly, in "Invasive Procedures", and most probably other early episodes. If anything, it should just be incorporated into the Deep Space 9 article and deleted once and for all. --Alan del Beccio 13:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Boson

Boson: Not cited, no episodes or other directly referenced terms link to the page. --Alan del Beccio 08:23, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This thing's been here for a few months. Can the lack of citation or episode links really be grounds for deletion? Perhaps simply adding some pna's (one for citation and one for possible inaccuracy) would do? If not, and if no refs can be found, then I will vote for delete. --From Andoria with Love 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I think the fact that it has gone months without citation is proof enough it shouldn't be here. If you haven't noticed already, there have already been several other related particles deleted lately that have been lingering just as long. --Alan del Beccio 13:05, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Horizon

The Horizon: Basically copied info from USS Horizon, this was created due to a theory that the Horizon which discovered Sigma Iotia II may not have been the Horizon whose model was seen in Benjamin Sisko's office and that it may have even been the cargo ship ECS Horizon. Since it was the purpose of the model-makers that the ship seen in Sisko's office was the same ship referenced in "A Piece of the Action" and since that ship is not likely to be the cargo ship (as discussed in the Horizon's talk page), I don't believe this additional article is needed. --From Andoria with Love 00:42, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

~~:Delete. Pointless article. Logan 5 04:42, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep/Move.

The fact that it really was the USS Horizon that visited the planet is itself just a theory. This leads us to the following: 1) An article about the ECS Horizon (from ENT). 2) An article about the USS Horizon (stating that it was shown as a model on Sisko's desk). 3) Information about the ship that visited Sigma Iotia.

Unless that ship was called USS Horizon on-screen, we shouldn't put that information on the "USS" article. Of course, we shouldn't put it on ECS Horizon, either, which only leaves us with the option to create a third article. Normally, I would suggest to simply move this article to Horizon, but there's already the episode of the same name. So my suggestion is the following:

Make Horizon into a disambiguation page for USS Horizon, ECS Horizon and Horizon (episode) (moved content). Move this page to Horizon (ship) (in fact, it might be best to move USS Horizon there and then separate the information again to keep track of authorship) and also add it to the disambiguation page. Add a short message to both the USS and ECS article, stating that "this might be the starship Horizon that visited Sigma Iotia II". -- Cid Highwind 11:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Unless that ship was called USS Horizon on-screen, we shouldn't put that information on the "USS" article." If indeed this is true, the following needs to be updated accordingly. The USS Ariel, which was only referred to as "science ship Ariel" and USS Huron, which was referred to twice as the SS Huron. --Alan del Beccio

I'm no TAS expert, but if that is what was said on-screen then yes, move those pages (and rephrase the "USS" speculation on the article)... -- Cid Highwind 13:23, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness, what Cid stated above is exactly the reason why Mike Nobody (I think it was him) created this in the first place and moved information from one article to another, but I was under the impression that the idea was shot down. He then went and changed things anyway, so I reverted everything and added this page here. It was never specifically stated on-screen that the Defiant seen on Sisko's desk was the same one that made contact at Sigma Iotia II, so you do both have a point. I was assuming, however, that production info, such as the designers wanting the model in Sisko's office to be that ship, was basically "as good as" canon, since production info/deleted items/backstage notes have been used canonically in the past. If I am wrong in this matter, however, then I withdraw my vote for delete and move to keep (and move as necessary). Note that this is not yet a vote, but it will be if it you agree I am in the wrong. --From Andoria with Love 09:53, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I vote Delete: The way I see it is there are three references to the Horizon:

1. The Horizon that littered planets in 2168. (TOS)
B. The USS Horizon model/toy that Sisko played with. (DS9)
3rd. The ECS Horizon that Mayweather went through puberty on. (ENT)

What Shran states is that it was the producers intention that Sisko's toy was the original Horizon. It was believed to be a Daedalus class starship meaning that it would be around before 2196. Note that there is nothing to prove that the Olympic class wannabe is the Daedalus class, except for background sources. Anyways, there is a limited window on when Sisko's Horizon could have traveled. On the Constitution class and Daedalus class pages, it uses the registries taken from the Star Trek Encyclopedia because of the whole "background sources" thing. Since in those very same "background sources" Kirk's Horizon was given the registry number NCC-176, and later Sisko's Horizon was given on-screen the registry number NCC-176, it is pretty obvious that they are one and the same. It is worth noting that the producers of Enterprise implied that the ECS Horizon was Kirk's Horizon by showing the Chicago Mobs of the Twenties novel. Even though, I think, like Shran did, that this page should be deleted (or merged) with the USS Horizon page because of producers' original intent, with an alright italicized note of course.--Tim Thomason 10:23, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking about "canon" here, but about valid resources - and last time I checked, "producers intent" was not generally a valid resource. That page, by the way, states that Encyclopedia and Chronology are primary sources (because they basically repeat what was shown on-screen), but that they contain some speculation which is probably considered invalid. The registry of the Horizon is such speculation. On top of that, if it was intent to have the TOS and DS9 Horizons be the same ship, and it was later intent to have the TOS and ENT Horizons be the same ship, what should we do? We mustn't be the ones deciding which one is the "correct" reference and which one is not. If the TOS Horizon (any Encyclopedia-speculation regarding the registries notwithstanding) could be any of the other two, that information should at least appear on both pages. Since it is more than just a short sentence, and since the TOS Horizon could even be a third ship, it should probably be outsourced to its own article. Shran: Where exactly was the idea discussed originally ("shot down"). If you could provide a link, it might be helpful in this discussion. -- Cid Highwind 11:45, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The idea was discussed, primarily between Alan and Mike Nobody, at Talk:USS Horizon. --From Andoria with Love 13:28, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

However this falls out, I don't see the need for a third Horizon article that has virtually the same content as USS Horizon. So I still say Delete and make note of this information on the USS Horizon page. And I could be wrong but I was fairly certain that A Piece of the Action does call it the USS not just "horizon", but even if we want to be strict (and I do think we're overthinking it) then at most we are talking about disambiguation page with links to the ECS and USS and at most a paragraph on the possible third ship (which we can't even confirm exists). Logan 5 22:38, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. This isn't a question of having another article with the same content as USS Horizon. It is a question of moving the content from USS Horizon to some other article, because the events described may have nothing to do with that ship. The episode does not refer to a "USS" Horizon specifically and in fact mentions some circumstances that might be construed as evidence for a NON-Federation Horizon (speculation, of course, but no more speculation than simply adding that information to one possible Horizon but not to the other. It's as simple as that: We do not know that this Horizon is the same as the one that was shown as a model on Sisko's desk. No need to talk about producers intent or anything - the reference is vague, so the information should either be placed at every possible location (meaning both USS and ECS) or, better yet, at a separate article because it might have been a third ship. -- Cid Highwind 22:48, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Despite what you say above about "producers intent", I still think that it isreasonable to believe that the USS Horizon model was built by the production staff to support the claim, made by Okuda in the Encyclopedia, which states that the Sigma Iotia-Horizon was a Daedalus class? Should we not be looking at this from the perspective of the apparent intervetion that was made after the fact by the later series' production staff-- that powers that be, if you will. Startrek.com seems to support the fact that the Sigma Iotia-Horizon was a "USS" here, here, and here (which supports Kirks comments that I noted on the aformentioned talk page) and makes no hint that the Horizon visiting the planet at Sigma Iotia was NON-Federation (I see no evidence of that whatsoever). Either way, I really dont think anyone has really read this thoroughly. --Alan del Beccio 23:20, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

startrek.com is not a valid resource. "Producers intent" alone is not a valid resource, even less if we have contradicting intents. Just like with any run-of-the-mill continuity error, we shouldn't make the error of deciding which version might be the correct one. If we want to include "producers intent", we have to acknowledge that a connection to the Sigma Iotia incident was made from both the ECS Horizon (via the book, even if not the same title) and the USS Horizon (via a less-than-visible decal on a model of a ship based on Okuda-conjecture). If we don't want to include "producers intent", we have to admit that we don't know more than "some ship called Horizon visited that planet about 100 years before Kirk". To make that absolutely clear, I'm not trying to argue that it was the ECS Horizon that visited Sigma Iotia. I'm trying to argue that anything connecting "the Horizon" to any of the two ships is based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork - something we more or less managed to avoid on MA for the last two years. I don't think we should stop avoiding now... :) -- Cid Highwind 23:43, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just rewatched the ep and you're right, there's no reference to USS Horizon, just Horizon. But if anything that means moving the content from USS to The and then getting rid of USS. Keeping a third article still seems too much. Basically that's an article for ECS, The, and then USS just in case the model on Sisko's desk is canon? Do we have any other articles for a prop that might be a reference? I say put it all on The Horizon, including the picture, but move the picture to a Background section. ECS should have a note referring to the article on The Horizon, and at most a disambiguation page for the two ships and the episode. Logan 5 03:33, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It might be a little confusing to also discuss the possible deletion of another article (USS Horizon) here, so let's be explicit about what to do. I suggest, as already mentioned above:

Keep ECS Horizon (not a part of this discussion anyway, just to be sure)
Merge The Horizon to USS Horizon (as "USS" originally had that content)
Move USS Horizon to Horizon (ship) (or whatever qualifier fits best)
Edit the resulting page, either moving any information about "USS" to a background section or back to USS Horizon (this part perhaps needs a separate discussion)
Link the "Horizon" page from both "USS" and "ECS", each time mentioning that it might be this ship that visited Sigma Iotia
Edit the disambiguation page Horizon to reflect these changes

That way, every information would be presented with the least amount of speculation. -- Cid Highwind 08:54, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

All of that, with the exception of moving USS Horizon to Horizon (ship) had already been done by Mike Nobody, and I reverted it, believing producers' intent to be enough for a source. (Personally, I think it should be, but apparently the majority does not.) I think what Mike Nobody began to do and what Cid suggests we do above is the best course of action. (That's a vote to merge this article to USS Horizon, while moving the content of "USS Horizon" to "Horizon (ship)" and editing as necessary. THEN, we can delete this article, becuase it would then become unnecessary, anyway.) --From Andoria with Love 11:18, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Agree, merge this article and USS Horizon, move to Horizon (ship) and edit that article with background info noting USS and the picture of the ship from Sisko's office. Logan 5 14:48, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hutet class

Hutet class: Non-canon article about a ship from a game with only the ship's measurements. It could also be merged into the game article itself (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Dominion Wars), although there's not really anything relevant to merge. --From Andoria with Love 11:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Delete - allow pages for things like this and it opens the doors for more non-canon entries. If there was a fair bit of info I'd say merge, but there's not. - Hayter 12:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Definitely - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:17, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete - --Fenian 18:20, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I haven't read any of the above, but I vote Merge with whatever video game this was referenced in, Dominion Wars (i guess) and delete. --Alan del Beccio 13:16, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- deleted--Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Disambiguation pages (for only two articles)

Brig (disambiguation), Ghost (disambiguation), Herbert (disambiguation), Lal (disambiguation), Loomis (disambiguation), ~~Martinez (disambiguation)~~, North Star (disambiguation), Pi (disambiguation), Tiburon (disambiguation), Tsunkatse (disambiguation): These disambiguation pages list only two pages, and the article at the non-disambiguated title links to the other one. Thus, the disambiguation pages are unnecessary (or should otherwise be moved to the non-disambiguated title themselves, if considered necessary). -- Cid Highwind 15:26, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I should note that when you factor in production staff, Martinez encomasses three people (Martinez, Terri Martinez (Starfleet) and namesake Terri Martinez) -- if you count the term "lal", that makes three for Lal -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk
- Comment - I'm taking back Martinez for the moment. The third disambiguation needs to be formatted properly, but is there. However, there is no third page for Lal, Lal (android) just redirects to Lal and thus doesn't need to be disambiguated. I also don't think that a third page for "lal" needs to be created in the future. Any further votes? -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
All but one deleted. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sha Ka Ree Entity

Sha Ka Ree Entity: This appears to be well documented under God, as are all of the images this entity portrayed (or was intended to portray). --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Redirect(?) -- Cid Highwind 08:25, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

support redirect -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk
The article needs work but I have to say keep, the Sha-Ka-Ree Entity is a character from Star Trek 5. Although I am not sure the name is correct, deleting him because he is also covered under god isn't a good reason. Each character gets his or her own page. --TOSrules 20:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Definitely keep. The article needs a lot of work but this is a specific character/entity and so deserves its own article. There's a lot of info that should be there and isn't including how it contacted Sybok, the fact that it was "imprisoned" there (we don't know by whom), etc. But definitely deserving of its own entry. Logan 5 21:50, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

-- i believe the point is that he isn't God, therefore the article "god" doesn't describe him well. Is this the best naming convention to move his information to? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 20:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Works for me. Also, God seems to hold up ok as it is, the info does not need to be moved. Sha Ka Ree Entity is a whole different topic. Jaf 13:29, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  - I think that about covers what i was tring to say --TOSrules 22:27, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Interphase (disambiguation)

Interphase (disambiguation): Only Interphase is a correct disambiguation target, both other meanings belong into a "see also" section and have been placed there on all relevant articles. This page is now obsolete. -- Cid Highwind 13:32, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC); delete Logan 5 18:49, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC); Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 13:18, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Mourn

Mourn as a redirect to Morn. This is completely different that Favourite Son and Favorite Son, "mourn" has a completely different meaning altogether and shouldn't be linked to a character. --Alan del Beccio 17:29, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Immediate delete. Don't worry Mr. Vulcan, I doubt this one can cause controversy. (And for the record, I still think Favourite Son is silly.) --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 17:40, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto, and I would appreciate it if you would not call me that, especially in maintenance pages. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 17:42, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

LCARS pages

Memory Alpha:LCARSource, LCARS:Encounter at Farpoint

Not sure why these were even created, and they're probably candidates for immediate deletion; the latter is the script for the episode, which I trust is not something we write articles on, and the user probably intends/intended to add more. Isn't that a copyright violation, too? --From Andoria with Love 04:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Keep. (1) We're about everything related to Star Trek (2) If we were truly put up to scrutiny on the fair use image issue, we'd be so dead already (3) Paramount doesn't sue people over this Mourn 04:37, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

True, we are about everything related to Star Trek -- as long as that "everything" is an original writing and in encyclopedic form, and who knows how many other things I could thing of if I wasn't tired. Also, it sounds like you need to read some of our copyright policies, boyo. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:42, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What about captain's logs and the fact that you use direct wording in your articles (not in quotation marks or attributed to the character much less the studio)? That's plagiarizing just as much. If you wanted to be truly original, you'd make up your own wording for that. I too am tired or I'd cite a couple examples. Also, the audio clips are longer than thirty seconds, which is the legal limit for sampling. But the point is that Paramount doesn't care so why not? It would be great and easy for people to access.Mourn 04:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

As Mike has already explained to you, we can use snippets of episodes and dialogue for review purposes. We don't copy and paste entire works, as that is not part of our mandate. Also, please do not remove other people's comments, unless it is vandalism or unrelated to a topic. --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I didn't the wiki did. Sorry Mourn 04:54, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mourn -- you are ineligible to vote. To date, excepting the above articles, you have made approximately zero useful, non-trivial edits. If you wish to take part in the community in this manner, you have to meaningfully contribute first (i would consider suggesting a change or discussing an article before creating it as a meaningful contribution, or simply editing an article in an acceptable manner accordin to Memory Alpha:Policy). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

These are copyright violations also, contain unagreed upon namespaces, unagreed categories: delete delete delete -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

(on the topic of our other legal use of copyrighted samples, i again point out that you are off topic -- we are not discussing that policy here, we are discussing the deletions of the above articles. Please stay on topic. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Delete, I completely agree with the reasoning. Comment: As the creator of these articles, Mourn is allowed to vote in this case. -- Cid Highwind 19:42, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Indeed, it's a copyright violation, regardless of whether "other people do it". On that topic, however, if anyone wants access to scripts, my user page has links to a couple places where they can be found, as well as a handy method for searching through scripts for a specific term or phrase. Weyoun 19:48, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Delete, considering the scripts explicitly state in those text files that keep circulate around the net that they aren't meant to be reproduced. Not sure who started it or leaked them or whatever, but MA isn't about stuff like that. Besides, it's one of the few things a google search will do just as easily as anything MA could provide. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Biggs (mirror)

Biggs (mirror): That page and it's "normal" counterpart Biggs are stubs, so I'd like to merge both on Biggs and delete this page. I just want to here some opinions first... -- Cid Highwind 19:53, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Keep Both and Don't Merge: Both articles should be separate as mirror universe characters are generally kept separate. Also, since the Columbia Biggs wasn't seen (I think), they could possibly be different characters (like Farrell (mirror) and Farrell). The mirror Biggs has a picture, so it's probable that his article, and the normal Biggs, can be increased with enough info from the episodes.--Tim Thomason 00:27, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I just want to point out that this is not generally so. When we started creating these "(mirror)" article, we decided (somewhere, can't find it at the moment) that a disambiguated article should only be created for the mirror persona if there's "enough" to talk about. This is based on the disambiguation policy which states that "If each of the topics themselves only has a sentence or two, it may be even simpler just to put all of them together in one article.". -- Cid Highwind 11:41, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
keep the article. the (mirror) disambiguant has been important in separating the duplicated or duplicately named mirror universe people into separate articles. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 12:33, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
My instincts would say merge but since they're separate people and MA has so many short articles I'd rather see in a list, I have to stick with current practices and say keep. Weyoun 02:25, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moons of Pluto

Moons of Pluto

A page for the two moons found orbiting Pluto earlier this year. Never referenced on Star Trek and there's not really any content here, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 03:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, however the information about Pluto's moon sould been added to the page itself (with a little more than just the astonomical numbers). --MstrControl 18:49, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As they've never been referenced, we can't really add anymore than the numbers. - User:AJHalliwell

Delete. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Stub categories

Category:Memory Alpha production stubs & Category:Memory Alpha performer stubs: Not discussed, and I strongly believe there was consensus not to create a category tree for stubs. -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems one was created by accident (the performer category), but thanks for bringing it to my attention because I think dividing stubs is a great idea. I only oppose the episode template (the argument for which was that it would automatically update an equivalent version of my/our duty roster) because (1) the duty roster's already been created, whereas we'd have to update every episode to apply the template and (2) I don't think the category tree should be as specific as the duty roster is (e.g. sub-divided to the point of invdividual seasons). But the production stub category should stay. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 22:59, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Delete both: if there is no current project to improve a category of articles, we don't need to subdivide the stub categories. If the project of Vedek Dukat is turned into an official MA project, then such a category might be appropriate, but in this case his user subpage could also be moved to MA namespace. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Keep the production one, although I'd prefer a more all-inclusive term like behind-the-scenes if it's going to include performers. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sorry if this was unclear, but since there's still the active policy of discussing categories first, I simply see no valid reason to keep any of these. We shouldn't start the practice of creating undiscussed category pages, then try to keep them alive by voting against their deletion. If you think these categories are useful, please bring them up for discussion first. If you think the policy needs to be changed, start a discussion about that. -- Cid Highwind 02:16, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly, the actual category stub was created nearly a year ago by Captainmike, but the category was never added, although I'm not sure why. I think Cid is right about agreeing upon categories, although considering the damage has been done and the votes so far were based around the idea itself rather than creation policy, we might as well turn this into a vote about the category. Therefore, I say keep or delete {{stub-production}} and {{stub-performer}} when you delete the categories. Weyoun 02:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Weyoun, the actual stub messages are and always were independent of their categorization. There's no problem with having different stub messages with the same category. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cid. Also, I've noticed that in the cases of "unagreed upon categories", such admins as Darkhorizon simply deleted them forgoing this process and noted in the log that they were deleted because they should have never been created or that the "category was not agreed upon." --Alan del Beccio 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Cardassian philosophy

I'm not at all sure there is enough material here to merit its own article. We've recently folded several other similar articles into the main species page (Ferengi among others). I think it works much better in the main page and have already put the content there. Without significant expansion, and I'm not sure how much it would need, I think we can do without this one. Logan 5 21:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Cardassian and delete this. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Merge. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

abbrev.

STVI, STV, STIV

Delete these unused redirects to Star Trek Movies, they don't follow naming conventions -- and there are already redirects formed more correctly as Star Trek IV and Star Trek V. "STV" in particular is confusing -- I've seen "ST:V" used to refer to both Star Trek V and Star Trek: Voyager -- so its probably best if we continue (as we have always done) at least typing out "Star Trek V" or "VOY" as the simplest short redirect names to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Voyager, respectively. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

Delete. Logan 5 01:43, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Kiloquad, Gigaquad, Teraquad

Once all the relative information is already on the quad page. --MstrControl ^{talk | contrib.} 03:39, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Merge into an all-inclusive page like latinum, which is a very comprehensive and informative article that provides more accessibility than having brick, strip, slip, etc. by themselves. However, I'd like to see the italicized text turned into a normal background section, as that would help further consolidate and make it flow easier -- but that's something we can discuss on a talk page. :) --Broik 04:06, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I agree that the sum of the whole is greater than that of the parts. Weyoun 02:27, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew language

Hebrew language

There are no Trek references to this, so it really doesn't belong here. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Neutral I remeber Dr. Crusher making a refrence to the exodus of the isrealites once. don't remember when though. Hebrew langauge was not mentioned but it was implied. Also the Gene Rodenbary was Jewish. Since Hebrew is the language of the jews it might be relevant. Tobyk777 00:13, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 ;[[Hebrew language]]:
 There are no Trek references to this, so it really doesn't belong here. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 19:39, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Neutral''' I remeber Dr. Crusher making a refrence to the exodus of the isrealites once.  don't remember when though.  Hebrew langauge was not mentioned but it was implied.  Also the Gene Rodenbary was Jewish.  Since Hebrew is the language of the jews it might be relevant.  [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 00:13, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)