Although I've been overruled on this type of subject before, do we really need to have a Memory Alpha entry on "mint"? On "sugar"? These are common words and don't have a unique Trek meaning. I propose they not form the basis of articles here. Aholland 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • My vote would be No. I'd say get rid of the background section totally, and if anything else, put a link to an external article on mint juleps: Mint julep -- Renegade54 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I inserted the background section and I'd be okay with that approach. I just thought it needed a little more explanation to provide context. I'll remove it, especially as it then gets rid of the suggestion that no one knows what sugar is for purposes of Trek. Aholland 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, make articles on mint and sugar, as we have on milk and salt, lets make articles on everything ever referenced in trek by the time we get this done. It's interesting. Mint for example has been contrasted between varities on Vulcan and Earth. Jaf 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
        • There have been occasions when we go overboard on article creation; for instance, people who have legitimate but ultimately inconsequential ties to Star Trek, or terms like "hew-mon". But I think on matters like mint, Saturday, beard, etc., there is no harm in having the articles and they do not meet the criteria for deletion. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've just completed the article on sugar. I think it's relevant, considering how many cross-references to it there are. njr75003 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+