FANDOM


m (Minnesota & Mississippi River)
(Minnesota & Mississippi River)
Line 99: Line 99:
   
 
;[[Mississippi River]] and [[Minnesota]] : No known Trek relevance. This was created along with [[Minnesota]]; however the latter had been previously deleted due to having no direct Trek relevance, so it qualified as an immediate delete. Strike that, the [[Minnesota]] page has been created again, so I must bring that up for deletion as well. Again, it was previously deleted for having no direct ''Trek'' content (see the discussion [[Memory_Alpha:Deletion_archive_2005#Maine|here]]), so by all rights and reasons, it should be deleted immediately, but I will place it here to appease the user who created it and prevent a deletion/creation/edit war. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 21:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 
;[[Mississippi River]] and [[Minnesota]] : No known Trek relevance. This was created along with [[Minnesota]]; however the latter had been previously deleted due to having no direct Trek relevance, so it qualified as an immediate delete. Strike that, the [[Minnesota]] page has been created again, so I must bring that up for deletion as well. Again, it was previously deleted for having no direct ''Trek'' content (see the discussion [[Memory_Alpha:Deletion_archive_2005#Maine|here]]), so by all rights and reasons, it should be deleted immediately, but I will place it here to appease the user who created it and prevent a deletion/creation/edit war. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 21:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  +
  +
* '''Delete''', I also added the {{tl|deletion}} notice to the [[Minnesota]] page. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 01:43, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:43, January 14, 2006

Template:Vfd

New IMDb templates

Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template.

The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I think inline links to external sources should be used only sparingly, if possible avoided. How often do we really want to link to an article at the IMDb if it is about an person/film etc. that we do not want to have an own article about? Delete. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's explain it this way: if you look at James Cromwell you can see it works well because you don't have to scroll down and click through IMDb to "L.A. Confidential" if you want to know something about this movie. And I doubt that L.A. Confidential is referenced in Trek, so we don't need an article. Btw: if we delete this, the inline links via [[Wikipedia:blabla|blabla]] must be removed for the same reasons... --Memory 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia links are different, in that they link to another Wiki. However, even those should be used at a minimum. The excessive IMDb links in an article are just annoying, at least in my opinion. By the way, the IMDb links on Cromwell (and some other pages, but not all) have been replaced with the (likely) preferred Wikipedia links, where applicable. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And this is supposed to be a substitution for all the cases that no WP article exists ;-) --Memory 19:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
There already is an interwiki link to titles at IMDb. If you put in [[Imdb:L.A. Confidential]], it will bring you to a search page which contains a link at the top, here. I have trouble trying to get it to go straight to the page, because the interwiki link automatically replaces the spacing with an underscore ( _ ), which the IMDb search engine doesn't seem to understand. Anyway, I vote delete both.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Since everyone has at least agreed to delete the company template, that has been deleted. However, the name template might have to be kept, as we have three votes to keep it (Renegade, Alan, Memory) and four votes to delete it (Platypus, Cid, Tim, myself). This I do not believe constitutes a 2/3 majority needed to delete the template. --From Andoria with Love 03:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the outcome, Alan didn't cast any vote on the remaining template. Still, let me address some of the above again:
When I said that, in my opinion, inline links to external sources should be used sparingly, this referred not only to non-Wikipedia links, and not only to actor pages, but to all of them. This site is about Star Trek - inline, off-site links should by definition only appear if the subject (actor, movie, item, concept) clearly has no Trek connection. In all other cases, we'd prefer an internal link. Before an external link is added, this decision has to be made. Second, is the loss of not inline-linking to completely unrelated movies and actors really that big? Someone reading MA is not necessarily interested in everything this actor did - in that case, he probably would have visited Wikipedia or IMDb instead - and in fact, he still can if we add both links in an "External links" section at the bottom of an article. Third, and this hasn't been brought up in this discussion, there even are guidelines that might apply in this case: Memory Alpha:Don't use external links where we'll want Memory Alpha links and Memory Alpha:Describe external links. -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
If we take an example, Elisha Cook, Jr., it is clear that it wouldn't be really logical to remove it, because nearly every other film on that page is linked with a WP-link, so why not "Terror at Alcatraz" with an IMDB-link (as long as no WP-link is possible)? --Memory 21:04, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, and good catch with Alan -- you're right, he never voted on the remaining page. We'll need to remove the template from the articles before deleting it, though; I think I can handle that when I get through with my "rounds". ;) --From Andoria with Love 20:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Babel categories

...are: en-N, en-4, en-3, en-2, en-1, en-0, de-N, de-4, de-3, de-2, de-1, de-0, es-N, es-4, es-3, es-2, es-1, fr-N, fr-3, fr-2, fr-1, it-2, it-1, nl-1 --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I was going to create the remaining Babel templates and categories, but then I thought to myself... How many of these categories will actually have people in them? Like some other things, I don't think Memory Alpha needs categories for each level of a language, simply because we don't have that many people and with a language like, say, Italian, I don't think there's a need for five categories. I'm posting this here rather than Ten Forward because I don't want to turn this into another "Was that a formal vote?" situation like the Duty Roster. So, I'm nominating all categories on Memory Alpha:Babel, outside the "User it", "User sv", etc, for deletion. The only exception should be English, which should be standard but not necessarily native. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree (delete) - let's have one category per language, listing all editors who actually speak that language at any level, but not 5 categories each. The english categories are not suggested for deletion here, but even they might be trimmed down IMO. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem trimming the Babel model -- the form i created it in was designed to reproduce the more extensive MA/de and Wikipedia versions, but i agree that for MA's size and activity, it might not be necessary to sort them in the current form. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Wow. Um... yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Could you post which links you specifically want deleted? --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I voted to have all those listed above be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The Vedek mentioned all categories outside "User xx", obviously referring to all subcategories from "xx-0" to "xx-N" with "xx" being any one of the existing language shortcuts. I still agree with that. A user either speaks a language (=is in the main category for that language) or he doesn't (=is not in the main category). For further details and to not break the existing templates on user pages, we should keep all templates, at least for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 20:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want to list them all, but basically anything listed on Memory Alpha:Babel under categories outside "en", "es", etc... so Category:User en-N, Category:User en-4, etc, which is what Cid said. I take back what I originally said about keeping English separated, but I do like having the templates at the different levels. It's just the categories that seem redundant, considering anyone under the five categories for a given language is already in that languages main category. I've adjusted the English templates to remove the extra categories and I think it looks fine. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the categories, keep the templates --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I vote to delete the extra categories. Could we perhaps, include the main language category link ("Users who speak Spanish" or whatever) with the extra templates?--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ranul Keru

Ranul Keru, non-canon, enough said. Jaz 21:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge appropriate content to Rogue and Star Trek: Titan, if possible. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to have been handled as a page merge. See MA:TF (section "Misplaced merge suggestions") for a suggestion to avoid having these suggestions on the deletion page in the future. -- Cid Highwind 21:00, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it's been moved, is it necessary to keep the redirect? --From Andoria with Love 20:43, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Bio-genevesium

Bio-genevesium 
Not cited and does not link anywhere. Also, a Google search did not find a single reference to this term, so it looks as though it is an imaginary term. Either that, or misspelled. --From Andoria with Love 17:21, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Its simply mis-spelt... its actually Bio-Genovesium. Should be moved, now I've added some more information, and that a picture has been added. Zsingaya Talk 19:50, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. Delete mis-spelled redirect. --From Andoria with Love 02:45, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has a source cited...the picture. -- Krevaner 12:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • You are of course aware that it's been redirected, right? In any case, this is now a vote to delete the redirect, which in any case will likely be deleted since it's misspelled. :-P --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Vaadwaur history

The pna discussion on the talk page seems to point toward a consensus that this one should be merged with the Vaadwaur species page so I thought I'd just get the process going. Logan 5 03:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Both pages seem to be short enough to be merged instead of kept separate. I agree with merge/keep redirect. I also just created a new template to suggest such merges in the future, see and comment on MA:TF ("Misplaced merge suggestions"). -- Cid Highwind 21:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Jaz 01:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Contract

Not sure about this entry. Really only has relevance in the Ferengi sense of the term but not much beyond that. Originally I thought I'd just clean it up, but frankly I'm not sure it's needed and I get the feeling, given the language, that the anon. users who created it weren't too serious to begin with. Logan 5 03:47, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • The last paragraph might be salvaged to Ferengi or Quark (if that information isn't already on any of these pages), but delete the rest. The context of the only link to that page (on Captive Pursuit) doesn't clarify anything, either, so maybe just remove that link as well. -- Cid Highwind 21:24, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Body Parts was about Quark's contract with Brunt to sell his remains, and there were numerous references after that episode to the incident. I don't recall any other uses off the top of my head, but that's more than enough to justify its existence. Weyoun 21:58, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well yeah, there were about a dozen references to it, I think I added all of them. --Broik 22:45, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepJaz 02:01, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've increased the number of links to the page from other areas. Between that and Broik's work I think it probably should be a keep now. Logan 5 20:59, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pna-episode

Template:Pna-episode 
Essentially unused (4 pages) and, more important, a near duplicate of Template:Pna-incomplete, just specialized on episodes. I don't think this is necessary, delete and replace with the incomplete message. -- Cid Highwind 14:47, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm abstaining because of personal bias in the Duty Roster vs Template debate, but I wanted to note that this could be used in conjunction with the Duty Roster if it links to the roster or something similar to that. The idea of categorizing episodes this way obviously fell through, but if people want to use this the way we do with multiple {{stub}} templates, I don't see a problem. Weyoun 02:47, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure if I'd call this unnessary or not. I know we've tried to avoid placing the incomplete template in episode articles in the past, so this seems like a good way to handle it. Then again, I'm not entirely certain a template is needed for one section of an article, and it is a near-duplicate of the incomplete template. I don't know -- this is one of those cases where I'll have to remain neutral until I hear some more opinions as to why or why not to keep this. --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota & Mississippi River

Mississippi River and Minnesota 
No known Trek relevance. This was created along with Minnesota; however the latter had been previously deleted due to having no direct Trek relevance, so it qualified as an immediate delete. Strike that, the Minnesota page has been created again, so I must bring that up for deletion as well. Again, it was previously deleted for having no direct Trek content (see the discussion here), so by all rights and reasons, it should be deleted immediately, but I will place it here to appease the user who created it and prevent a deletion/creation/edit war. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.