Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Changes: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Back to page
View source
Line 84: Line 84:
   
 
Alrighty, sounds good to me. I shall begin the deletion process shortly. :) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  
Alrighty, sounds good to me. I shall begin the deletion process shortly. :) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  +
  +
* '''Delete'''. Screw democracy. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
   
 
== Pulsed phase cannon redirect ==
  
== Pulsed phase cannon redirect ==

Revision as of 11:00, 13 March 2006

Template:Vfd

FlashTrek

  • No canon content, delete. -- Renegade54 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move or merge into an appropriate page about such things. It's a real game, I found that much out. Looks promising[1]. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/merge somewhere. We can have articles for games, but I think those are only for games officially licensed by Paramount. --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/merge. It is legit as part of the larger Trek Franchise and could be combined with - say - a list of non-Paramount licensed games. Aholland 14:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Federation starship prototype names

USS Istanbul
  • This entry is speculation without any identified basis, not even a secondary production art or reference work citation. The article even acknowledges this itself. Aholland 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
USS Zodiac, USS Wells, USS Surak, USS Wambundu, USS Steamrunner, USS Sovereign, USS Soyuz, USS Sequoia, USS Saber, USS Rigel, USS Renaissance, USS Olympic, USS Norway, USS Niagara, USS New Orleans, USS Nebula, USS Miranda, USS Merced, USS Mediterranean, USS Hokule'a; USS Deneva, USS Daedalus, USS Chimera, USS Cheyenne, USS Apollo, USS Andromeda,
SS Erewon (late edition)
  • As it is stated in a few of these articles: "we can infer that it existed based on Federation's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype." Not the most eloquent wording, but the naming from what we've seen it is an accurate observation, i.e. the USS Excelsior, USS Galaxy, etc. So to save some time on this long standing debate, let's do this in one fell swoop. --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can vote on the single article I suggested for deletion, but as to any other article on a Starship that does not have a single resource of any sort to back it up other than "it seems reasonable to assume" I vote to Delete. After all, if common practice observed in Trek can be used as the sole basis for speculative articles we open the doors to all kinds of fanon; something I believe this site desires to avoid. Aholland 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The line must be drawn here! This far! No further! --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: For the record, my vote was a joke, so don't take it seriously. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all of the Starfleet ships (including Istanbul). It has been shown in several episodes that it is Federation practice to name a class after the prototype ship (at least by the 2240s). If we are meant to be complete then articles should be made for these classes' prototypes, which are inferred from any source mentioning or showing the class name.--Tim Thomason 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep USS Wambundu, USS Daedalus and any articles with legitimate information that's verifiable, delete the others. They don't tell us anything about the ship and, for instance, I highly doubt they'd have a USS Olympic as opposed to a USS Olympus for the Olympic class. The fact is they don't really tell us anything of value if they just make conjectures - even if it is a tradition, we don't have to have articles on them just because it's "normally" done, in addition to cases like the Olympic class. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Istanbul since the class was (apparently) never mentioned in onscreen material we have access to. Keep the rest (perhaps merging/renaming the Olympic/Olympus uncertainty). It is pretty straight-forward how Federation starship classes are named. I think our energies would be better spent finding other non-canon topics to weed out rather than these starships, all of which, besides Istanbul, have their class havng been mentioned either in dialogue or on accessible background art such as computer displays/animations/printouts. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vedek Dukat. However, move USS Olympic if we keep it. Makon 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Presumably your intention is to duplicate Dukat's vote of keeping all the verifiable ones, meaning only delete exceptions (so far, to my knowledge, including Istanbul and the Olymp(ic)us). Please specify if any intention was different. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologise for the confusion. My stance is that we should delete any starships whose existence is not known. Inferences from tradition don't necessitate an article. The Olympic is a perfect example -- although, in response to Cid Highwind's comment below, Olympic would be the adjective formed from the noun Olympus (or Olympia?) -- of a case where we don't know what the prototype was called, if it existed. What do we gain from these pages? I click on one of them, am presented with "This was probably the prototype for the eponymous starship class, although it was never mentioned or seen anywhere and its existence isn't certain" and I promptly feel cheated, because I wasted my time in visiting that page, which tells me nothing I didn't know already. Makon 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename USS Olympus and delete the Istanbul per Captainmike, but keep the rest. Tim convinced me over IRC that the Olympus issue isn't enough to delete them over, as we can correct errors as we encounter them. I still think we had this conversation before though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After a number of edit conflicts, delete Istanbul, keep the rest. Geez! --From Andoria with Love 06:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting on this issue either way, but have we confirmed all the other ships as having their class names appear on screen? I think a closer look needs to be made at some of those listed because I'm not sure I see that the USS Andromeda/Andromeda class was, both the USS Drake and USS Prokofiev were referred to in dialog, and did not appear in any displays/diagrams. -Alan del Beccio 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's that Olympic/Olympus discussion about? Names ending in "-ic" seem to be valid ship names in real-life (Titanic, Britannic, Majestic, ...). How someone can infer the name "Olympus" from an "Olympic" class I don't really understand - and thus disagree with a page move, should the article continue to exist. Regarding the original suggestion, I agree that all articles about ships that haven't been named on-screen should be removed. However, since a) naming ships after the class seems to be common practice and b) we can't say anything special about a ship we haven't heard of anyway... Wouldn't it be a good compromise to turn all those ship names into redirects to the class articles and add a note that "a ship with that name might exist as the class prototype" to those articles? -- Cid Highwind 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the guy who first suggested deletion of the USS Istanbul, I would support a redirect with a note as suggested by Cid in lieu of deletion. Aholland 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I go with the "divided" delete/keep vote like Captainmike and Vedek Dukat, dependent on if the the class was mentioned onscreen (keep then) or not (delete then). Also delete the Klingon prototype ships as we do not know their policy. But we DO know the UFP policy, so IMO it would be just wrong to delete USS Sovereign or USS Nebula for instance. Kennelly 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, we don't really know about this "UFP policy". Tell me, of how many (and which) ship classes do we know both the class name and about the existance of a prototype vessel of the same name from onscreen sources? -- Cid Highwind 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Klingon ones should be deleted, since there is no canon evidence that the Klingon ships are named after the prototype, however, there is suffcient canon evidence that on Federation starships, the class is named after the prototype of the class. Some canon examples are:
  • I think it is right to keep the articles of the Federation prototypes that we haven't seen, because of the canon evidence right in front fo us. I vote NO on deletion for the articles of the Federeation ships. -- Ensign q 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to state the obvious (something I excel at), no one has yet provided a resource for Cid stating the practice that Starfleet always, without fail, in all situations and at all times, has a ship named after a class. A number of examples increases probability, but we're supposed to deal with valid resources here, not the odds. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep!--MatthewFenton 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • An explaination would be nice to support your vote with. --Alan del Beccio 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here's a challenge. Take the "Canon policy" (even take the old one if you like) and tell me how, according to that policy, an article about a starship that hasn't been named directly, but whose name is only derived from a class name and the assumption that "this is what the UFP always does", should stay. If you can't, we don't even need to have this vote - if this is not from a valid resource, it needs to go. If you can, we can still talk about the fact that these pages basically contain no information besides the fact that "this probably is the prototype of the X class" - in that case, why don't we simply redirect to the class article anyway? -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, from that list above you can already remove the Constitution, the Whorfin (according to background information on their article), the Oberth and even the Galaxy (no NX-prefix according to their article). I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is hardly "hard evidence" either. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I say we merge and redirect the works of these to prototype, being as they are already listed there it won't take much work. Jaf 13:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
  • Oh, fine fine, delete them all. "This line must be drawn here! This far! No farther!" (no joking this time) --From Andoria with Love 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah to add to that list: USS Intrepid (NX-74600) - Ensign q 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What is your source for the NX prefix on this ship and those that Cid referenced above? I think the Excelsior is the only ship we've seen on screen change from an NX to a NCC, the rest never changed or are being "made up" for the sake of your list. --Alan del Beccio 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep (Istanbul was included in Encyclopedia first edition, so it was likely included in many later appearences causing canonicity from non-canon appearance) -- Kobi - (Talk) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is the Istanbul as a class or the USS Istanbul itself in the Encyclopedia? And was it pulled from later editions (you cited the first which made me wonder)? Aholland 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Encyclopedia is prone to speculation, I believe. I just thought I'd point that out. But I guess since it's made by people involved in the productions, it's considered a valid source (albeit non-canon), so Istanbul and any other speculative prototype listed in the Encyclopedia are fair game and should be kept... I guess. I, personally, was under the impression that we didn't follow what other Encyclopedias did, no matter how official they are, but I guess I was wrong. :P (By the way, I vote to keep all USS Intrepids) --From Andoria with Love 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Even I would be okay with basing the ship on the Encyclopedia (as a permitted non-canon resource, like you said), but apparently only the class of ship is in there; not the USS Istanbul itself. Aholland 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Found another canon one: USS Bradbury (NX-72307). Come on guys, I think there is enough canon evidence to support this theory. Let's keep these ships. Ensign q 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Most all of the ships you've listed have had a purpose in the series, and were either stated in dialog or appeared on a diagram somewhere. Those aren't listed here for deletion, nor does referencing them here and now really "prove" these other ships existed-- like you said, it's a theory. But when it all boils down, what is the point of having an article about a starship that says nothing of consequence, while at the same time references a class name that is almost equally inconsequential? Example: USS Chimera/Chimera class. --Alan del Beccio 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • THe point is that this ship prototype-ship class name practice is canon, and all ships must be listed, no matter who little information is stated.

Ensign q 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ensign q, the question is not whether the practice is canon; for purposes of Memory Alpha it clearly isn't. (See Memory Alpha:Canon policy). The question is whether to nonetheless list ships in Memory Alpha in separate articles when they have no reference anywhere but are presumed to exist in theory by some because of certain observed instances of a ship having the same name as a class. (By the way, I'd put this on your Talk page, but I can't find it - sorry!) Aholland 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to Merge and redirect to the class page. On the class page, it can be specified if there is any canonical reference to the prototype. Camel828 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Within my own canon, TOS, TNG and the first 6 movies, the only example is the Excelsior (But was it ever called Excelsior Class?). Although the Galaxy is an interesting point, consider this, in an alternate time line created when the Enterprise-C jumped 20 years ahead, Tasha tells us that the first Galaxy Class starship is the USS Enterprise. --TOSrules 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so... time's up. What are we keeping and what are we deleting? :P --From Andoria with Love 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... So far, there hasn't been a valid reference for the claimed "UFP policy" - and as long as we don't get that (which means that all we have at the moment is assumption), it is a ridiculous idea to even have a vote here to keep these pages. Last time I checked, Vfd discussions were not meant to circumvent canon policy, and I don't think we should start that here and now by keeping articles that don't have any important content anyway... -- Cid Highwind 09:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, sounds good to me. I shall begin the deletion process shortly. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Screw democracy. Weyoun 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pulsed phase cannon redirect

Pulse phase cannon
A redirect to pulsed phase cannon; however, while "pulsed phase cannon" has been mentioned, the term "pulse phase cannon" has not. It's a minor issue, but I don't really think this redirect is necessary. --From Andoria with Love 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sure, just remember to fix all the links (about 6 last I checked) this time.--Tim Thomason 10:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but consider a redirect as it appears likely the mistake will be repeated in the future, requiring another deletion. (Not sure what the convention on the site is as to common misspelled words.) Aholland 13:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded starship class templates

Template:CheyenneClassStarships, Template:ChimeraClassStarships, Template:FederationClassStarships, Template:Hokule‘aClassStarships, Template:KorolevClassStarships, Template:MercedClassStarships, Template:NorwayClassStarships, Template:SaberClassStarships, Template:SoyuzClassStarships, Template:SpringfieldClassStarships, Template:WellsClassStarships, Template:YorkshireClassStarships, Template:ZodiacClassStarships
I don't think we need templates for classes with only two ships attached to them... especially since half of the ships listed may be deleted, leaving only one ship listed on each, making the templates even more unnecessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote Delete as I believe the minimum should be kept at 3 starships, as per my wishes on a talk page somewhere. I don't think it's a good idea, and it looks better with 3+ to me. (BTW, you're supposed to add the deletion template to a template's talk page).--Tim Thomason 10:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

UESPA Headquarters

UESPA Headquarters
Does this even need its own article? The UESPA article basically states that "UESPA was headquartered at UESPA Headquarters" (d'oh!), and this article doesn't tell us anything else. Besides, the main UESPA article is the only one linking to this at the moment - it seems to me as if the term should be "UESPA _h_eadquarters" instead, and not linked to a separate article. If necessary, we could create a redirect, although I don't even see a need for that at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this info is already present at the main UESPA page, I don't think there's a need to have a seperate article with the same info. As you said, it doesn't really tell us anything else. Delete. The line must be drawn here! This far! No farther! --From Andoria with Love 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms