Type 10 shuttlecraft: deletion discussionEdit

Deletion rationale Edit

"Type 10" and "shuttlecraft" are from DS9 Tech Manual. Dialogue in "The Sound of Her Voice" clearly designates the Chaffee as a shuttlePOD, not a shuttle craft, nor is "Type 10" designation mentioned.

I have already duplicated the necessary background information re: "Type 10 shuttlecraft" and it's sourcing regards Chaffee to the "Chaffee" page background section, where it should be.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

Strong oppose. There is a lot of useful editing history in this article. This should be a merge, not a delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Type 10 shuttlepod" if it was referred to as such in dialogue,(although I believe shuttlepods have been called shuttlecraft before, so that doesn't mean much) but it should not be deleted. I oppose a merge.--31dot 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Type 10" NOT from episode, ONLY from Tech Manual and Starship Spotter. POD is spoken, not craft in dialogue. Canon trumps non-canon/secondary, correct? Seems to me to be open and shut case, unless you want to change the canon policy.Capt Christopher Donovan 12:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with your point about what trumps what by saying that it should be renamed to shuttlepod.(assuming people simply did not misspeak) Unless something contradicts the 'type-10" reference, I see no reason to remove that. --31dot 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming it is just the name that is non-canon, then definitely don't delete. Move to some other title, as for example Defiant shuttlepod (first thing that came to mind, there may be a better one) and be done with it. -- Cid Highwind 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe even Chaffee type shuttlepod. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Isn't Tech Manual a permitted source, as long as we say that it is referenced from the it?--Rom UlanHail 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Only for background information, not for naming an entire article. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But still, i will vote Oppose. Maybee a merge with Chaffee, but not just delete it.--Rom UlanHail 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I support either Merging and redirecting (as a non-canon redirect) or changing the title, but definitely don't delete. – Cleanse 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. We accept a more broad level of information in the naming of articles. If the Defiant has a new class of shuttle/pod, we should have a page about them. That page needs a name. So I think its reasonable to find that name in sources not necessarily seen on screen. Otherwise, we wouldn't have name for that *VAST* majority of articles on memory alpha. Hossrex 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Effectively, when I duplicated the necessary background information to "Chaffee", what I did was an information merge. Some have indicated that there is information in the "edititng history" they think should be preserved. I would support a merge/redirect with/to "Chaffee" on that basis, whichever would satisfy the historical concerns better.Capt Christopher Donovan 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hossrex, can you provide an example of an article with a name not stated on screen with the exception of the "X type" classes (which in fact are based on screen information)? --OuroborosCobra talk 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Madison_Picard, Talk:Jesus_Christ, Ba'ku_llama, Maltz . -- Hossrex 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would submit that that first article needs to go or be fixed too...ZERO canon citation (at least provided). The others at least have onscreen visual or verbal support.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
From Shran, in the Saavik talk page "Well, the canon policy explains why we only use script info to name articles, but the only exception is for naming purposes. -- Hossrex 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The script isn't the Encyclopedia or Tech Manual. The script has a direct relationship to the on screen product. Calling something a Llama is hardly anything like making up a technical designatiion for a shuttlepod. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadnought With enough time, I could find dozens. You can say "we shouldn't allow this now, for whatever reason", but to imply we've never done this is flatly incorrect. I've seen them, I've commented on them, I remember them. They exist. -- Hossrex 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait... how isn't it the same to call the Ba'ku pack animal a "Llama", as it is to use the name the creator gave to a ship, because it wasn't mentioned on screen? That Ba'Ku animal CLEARLY isn't a Llama. Its the same exact thing, except for there is ZERO evidence to call the thing a Llama, and a little evidence to create an article title for the shuttlecraft. -- Hossrex 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read the article for Dreadnought very carefully, it was heard in the chatter on Epsilon IX. As for the Baku animal, that is why we don't call it an Earth Llama. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hossrex. I think we have several distinct classes of situations here , of which some of your examples are from:
  • A. The name is from the script. Is allowed.
  • B. The name is based on the fact that the item in question has a real-life name eg. Jesus Christ (characters referred only to "Christ" in Trek, but we are allowed to say its a ref to JC). This is also okay. The llama article stretches this a bit admittedly.
  • C. The name is from neither. This is what is in dispute. – Cleanse 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The question to me was "can you provide an example of an article with a name not stated on screen". I did. Several. In addition, I don't see the difference in assuming that "Christ" would necessarily be referring to Jesus, when its actually simply a Greek title meaning "Anointed One" Jesus. Its an assumption. Its an allowed assumption. If the group consensus is to allow assumptions, I'll withdraw my disagreement. However to say it isn't an assumption is incorrect. The Llama thing is pure comedic garbage, which I'm shocked is allowed to live, but who the heck cares, so... yeah... I honestly don't either. As far as the Dreadnought thing goes... I didn't fail to read closely... although I admit I interpreted the phrasing incorrectly. I had taken this quote "which came from the Star Fleet Technical Manual." to mean that the ship named Entente was mentioned on screen, and the class came from the tech manual. I've watched the scene on DVD, and I can personally vouch for both words "Entente", and "Dreadnought" being used. So... I was wrong about that. No argument. Hossrex 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think naming articles based on reference sources is allowed but, in this case, what is in the reference source contradicts what was heard on screen. Because of that, I don't think it's a good idea to say the reference work was half-right/half-wrong and move the page to "Type 10 shuttlepod". I think moving it to one of the other names suggested above is best, with background info mentioning the tech manual reference. --From Andoria with Love 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I support Shran's opinion entirely. -- Hossrex 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As do I. I think that Chaffee type shuttlepod is a good idea, or anything similar. --31dot 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that suggested Chaffee type shuttlepod, why is Shran getting the credit :( --OuroborosCobra talk 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I already duplicated the essential information on the "Chaffee" page. I think the redirect should go there, since "Chaffee" is the only pod of it's type ever depicted in canon.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Might as well be merged with the ship article, if that one is the only known ship of that type. In any case, merge and keep the redirect, but still don't delete. -- Cid Highwind 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the policy is on articles about things like ship classes and species(basically, groups). There are other instances of a species or class of ship with only one member having an article about that class and a corresponding article about the ship itself. Personally, I don't care whether or not this is the case, but we should be consistent.--31dot 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Rename. Someone(s) suggested this. It seems to me that changing the name is the fastest way to fixt the problem with the least amount of effort. Right? I could be wrong. Does anyone have a reason why a name change couldn't work? --Icesyckel 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been no activity for over 11 days now on this discussion...unless I hear an objection, I'm prepared to redirect this page to Chaffee, but someone else will have to merge the talk pages, because I'm not sure how to do that.Capt Christopher Donovan 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP, OPPOSE, HALT! Dude, Donovan, read the above comments. Next to no one support the idea of riedirecting to Chaffee. Not to mention that simply doing the redirect on your own is in and of itself the very ting that screws up how merges are supposed to be done. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, which was what I was really hoping someone would do (it has been 10 days after all). I didn't say I was going to do it, only that I was prepeared to do it if there was no other discussion.
By my count there are at least 4 in favor of "Chaffee" (myself, Cid, Hossrex, and 31dot). Several more are in favor of an unspecified merge/redirect, or some such including the "Chaffee" name (redundant IMO since we HAVE a "Chaffee" page already). The strong opposes are opposing outright deletion of the page.
So, where should it go? I submitt that Chaffee is the BEST page for a merge/redirect, since that pod is the only known example of the type. The base information can also be included on the shuttlepod page for completeness of coverage, but I don't think that Chaffee-specific discussion should be merged there.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the positions, with all the cross talk and debate omitted, in order from the top Note that some opinions modify slightly over time, and I include only my ultimate opinion:
  • Merge with "Chaffee" - (myself)
  • Oppose delete, support merge - OurorborosCobra
  • Oppose delete, oppose merge, support rename - 31dot
  • Support rename - Cid Highwind
  • Support rename - OurorborosCobra
  • Oppose delete, support merge - Rom Ulan
  • Oppose delete, support merge/redirect - Cleanse
  • Oppose delete - Hossrex
  • Oppose delete, support move/rename - Shran
  • Support Shran above - Hossrex
  • Support Shran and Hossrex above - 31 dot
  • Support merge - Cid Highwind
  • Support rename -Icesyckel
There is overwhelming support for either a merge or a rename. Renaming is IMO redundant, as all pertinent info is ALREADY on either the shuttlepod or Chaffee pages. That leaves merge, and I feel "Chaffee" is the better fit because all the specific information about this type pod is specific to the Chaffee, the only one ever shown.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming may seem redundant to you, but maybe that is because you put that information there as part of a merge that was never agreed upon, and that information needs to get removed and put in the renamed article. Yes, I agree that there is support for rename. Again though, even if there is support for a merge, you can't do it, it needs to be done by an admin. This isn't an issue of being bold or overgrown bureaucracy, this is a simple technical fact. Part of the process of a proper merge is deleting the destination article temporarily to allow a history merge. Don't try this on your own, you aren't an admin and quite simply cannot do this. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which again, was not my ultimate intention...I was trying to get the ball moving on WHATEVER solution was agreed upon. In any rate, I still fail to see a need for a NEW page for "Chaffee type shuttlepod" when we have ones for both "Chaffee" AND "shuttlepod", either of which would serve just fine... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me - forgot how many indents I used last time and am too lazy to look. I still don't understand your objection to a simple rename. If you would explain it, then I would listen. for the moment, however, a rename still seems to me to be the most logical course of action. --Icesyckel 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My objection as stated directly above your post, is that it is redundant. What would you rename it TO? "Chaffee"? We have that page. "Shuttlepod"? We have that page too. "Chaffee type shuttlepod"? Why? It would still be repeating the same information as "Chaffee" and "shuttlepod".

Hope that clarifies my position.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the information that was in Type 10 shuttlecraft that you added when this whole thing started needs to be removed. That happens, you won't have nearly as much redundancy. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

Ok. This went on for far too long without a good consensus of any kind. I've ripped out the duplicate background material from Chaffee. I moved the Type 10 shuttlecraft article to Chaffee type shuttlepod, even though I'm not entirely convinced that it shouldn't be at Type 10 shuttlepod instead. I also rewrote it to suit. Or tried.

Lessons learned:

  1. Don't cut and paste to "merge" crap and leave it as duplicate information.
  2. Don't then recommend to delete the original article. Use the merge with template instead.
  3. Don't let these discussions go on for so long. They go in bloody useless circles.

'Nuff said. -- Sulfur 13:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow upEdit

Well, I wasn't around for the first-go-round of this discussion, but the name comes from production background sources which we have accepted on many many other previous occasions, I hardly see a reason to exclude the given "Type X name" when that is the only name any one cross referencing production sources would ever K't'inga class or even the Akira class. --Alan 01:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, both the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual and the Star Trek Encyclopedia are the sources for the class 10 shuttlecraft name, just like the aforementioned classes. --Alan 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


To follow up with all of the above. I also suggest we rename this article to Type 10 shuttlecraft. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual and the Star Trek Encyclopedia use the name type 10 shuttlecraft. And while I too acknowledge the fact that this is clearly canonically a sublight shuttlepod and not a warpshuttle as it was designed to be, i think we should still designate it as a shuttlecraft since the Chaffee was labeled as "Defiant shuttlecraft 1". The main precedences being the Type 8 shuttlecraft and Type 18 shuttlepod that also derive their designations solely from the bg. --Pseudohuman 22:39, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

We either use the full term or not, and even though I hate the full term, policy says we could use it, so I won't oppose that. I do see why it shouldn't be used though, since we would have to make this a shuttlecraft instead of a shuttlepod, but then again, the Type 18 shuttlepod must have had a warp engine, and DS9 was stupid about all things related to the Defiant (just check out the incorrect MSD still being used in the final episode). - Archduk3 22:48, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Absent some new information, I maintain my views from the above discussion, and don't think further action needs to be taken.--31dot 23:37, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think the new information, if you can call it that, is that the Chaffee is called a "shuttlecraft" on its hull. [1](X) And shuttlecraft are not always necessarily warp-ships as is apparent from TOS. And we would seem to have a double standard if we call this "Chaffee-type", but dont call the Type 8 "Tereshkova-type". --Pseudohuman 23:33, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly free to propose changing the Type 8 page to match whatever is done here. You might even be right- I'm not sure yet. Regardless of what it was labeled(and I'm not entirely sure, but I think the label wasn't clearly seen in canon) it was referred to as a shuttlepod in dialog. We don't have Constitution class at "Starship class" even though the Bridge was labeled as Starship class. I'm still comfortable with my opinion on this. --31dot 02:20, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, it doesn't matter if it readable on screen, just so long as it was there. If a HD Blu-ray version of this comes out eventually, it just might be readable then. So long as we're making a clear distinction between a pod and a craft, it might just be better to keep it here with the redirect. - Archduk3 03:00, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind a redirect of the title PH is proposing- I just think the article should be here(as Archduk does). According to MA:CANON's valid resources policy, information given verbally takes precedence over information given visually. Even if the label was clearly seen, the use of "shuttlepod" in dialog takes precedence- though certainly all information should be mentioned in Background.--31dot 03:17, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I think "Time Squared" makes it pretty clear that "shuttlecraft" term is used of "shuttlepods" by Starfleet. Canon doesn't make a distinction, why are we making one? I agree that the ship is a "pod" in classification, but it is a "craft" that is a "pod", is what I am saying. --Pseudohuman 04:51, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

What "Time Squared" makes clear is that one person called the type of craft one thing, and someone else a few years later called it something else, using the terms interchangeably. Since the term wasn't used consistently, we should use what was said in dialog in each case(and in this case, pod was used). --31dot 09:50, February 5, 2012 (UTC)