Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Memory Alpha
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
60,115
pages
in: Memory Alpha archived restoration discussions

Memory Alpha:Restoration discussions/Sigma Iotia system

< Memory Alpha:Restoration discussions
Sign in to edit


This is a page to discuss the suggestion to restore "Sigma Iotia system".

  • If you are suggesting a page for restoration, add your initial rationale to the section "Restoration 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 restoration policy before editing this page.

Restoration rationale[]

This system was referred to as system in "A Piece of the Action". The name was not mentioned.Throwback (talk) 15:54, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[]

I'm not clear on the rationale here- if the name wasn't mentioned, then how was it referred to as a system? 31dot (talk) 20:18, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Captain Kirk said to Bela Oxmyx, Your system is on the outer reaches of the galaxy. This was the only time that Sigma Iotia II's system was mentioned in the episode. There were two possibilities here: the system was named Sigma Iotia or it could have been named something else, such as in the case of Beta III. Beta III was located in the C-111 system. I apologize for not being clear, Throwback (talk) 03:02, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

If "Sigma Iotia system" was not said specifically, and if we can only narrow down the chance it was referred to as such to 50-50, I'm thinking this should stay deleted. Unless I'm missing something else. 31dot (talk) 12:20, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with restoring this and just adding a bg note that the name of the system isn't 100% clear, since the system itself was referenced, and we don't have a unnamed systems page. - Archduk3 20:12, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe having an unnamed systems page, or something similar, is worth exploring. There's bound to be more cases like this, and if an "xx system"-type article can both be about a factually named system, or an unnamed one named by convention that's not going to be very elegant. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:09, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
Super late, but that sounds like a good idea. - Archduk3 10:02, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Admin resolution[]

Community content is available under the CC-BY-NC license unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement