Memory Beta:Votes for deletion/archive

Image: (various) Fan made / non-Trek

 * Image:Chateau Thelian.jpg - Non-Trek related, just used as a "it might look sorta like this" (Unless it is mentioned IN the novel, as the page almost suggests.)
 * Image:ChristineVale.jpg - CSI Copyrighted image, non-Star Trek, and I don't believe the author said "She looks like Sara Sidle", so fans opinion.
 * Image:LasVegas.jpg
 * Image:Akyazi.jpg - Seems like it's from a website, not a book/novel/game/comic, and it appears to have the copyrights on it.
 * Image:Min zife.jpg - Fan spliced image.
 * Image:DTI.gif - Made made it seems, not from (or described) in any novel, etc. -I don't have a problem with this one as long as it's made clear that it's an artist representation.--Turtletrekker 07:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 

Delete. These all (and apparently one of President Kennedy somewhere) have been suggested for deletion due to unusual copyrights, and they don't follow the wiki's purpose in the Community Portal, and I tend to agree. - Lieutenant Ayala 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Kenneth_Wescott.jpg (Here's Kennedy. Same reason as above) --Chops 00:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As for:
 * Image:Chateau Thelian.jpg - replace with an external link to the real-life chateau shown in the picture.
 * Image:ChristineVale.jpg - neutral for now: Check with Sci as to why he posted this.
 * I posted it solely because I'd seen so many threads over at the TrekBBS engaging in conjectural casting of Vale, and thought that one possible depiction of her would be nice to add to the Wiki. I didn't see it as being any different from the Min Zife image, or the fanon FNS logo: Conjectural depictions to enhance the Wiki, but subject to removal if something new popped up from the licensed sources. -- Sci 05:58 19 April 2006 UTC
 * Image:LasVegas.jpg - delete unnecessary -- doesn't depict Las Vegas in either the 2050s (era of the linked article) nor of the 1960s (Vic Fontaine's Vegas)
 * Image:Akyazi.jpg - delete The Akyazis have been discussed as a possible grey zone in this site's mandate, but so far they're still no more than that. Even if they weren't, we'd need the permission of the creator of that image, which we don't have.
 * Image:Min zife.jpg - delete, unnecessary
 * Image:DTI.gif - delete, fanon
 * Image:Kenneth_Wescott.jpg - delete, unnecessary--Emperorkalan 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Bolarus.gif - fanon source --Chops 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to vote against all of the above being deleted. I see no harm in adding conjectural visual aides, and I think that they enhance the Non-Canon Wiki a great deal. In addition, many of these images have been up for a long time without any fuss before. One of the things that always irritated me about Memory Alpha and that I loved about Memory Beta is that MA was so restrictive (sometimes arbitrarilly so) and Memory Beta much more accepting; I'd really hate to see MB go the way of MA. -- Sci 05:55 19 April 2006 UTC

We should delete that Vale picture and Kennedy, definitley. Akyazi is fandom so that should go as well. Min Zife i'm neutral about and the chateau can stay I guess. The one I really think needs to go is Vale though. --Arcarsenal 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While remaining less strict than Memory Alpha, conjecture of any kind is not what we're aiming for. One thing I dislike about this wiki is that "Non-canon" implies we'll take just about anything, when (and at least I believe) the point is to be "continuity in the novels, games and comics". So anything MA won't give it's own article, sort of. - Lieutenant Ayala 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose what I object to is the notion that supplemental materials that are conjectural can't be accepted. Things like images, that do not constitute the body of an entry but rather help to support the entry to generate interest and to make the wiki look more "professional." Further, there were never any rules against conjectural supplemental material previously that I'm aware of; many of these images have been on the Wiki for months without issue. I'm not saying that the Non-Canon Wiki ought to take just anything -- but conjectural material such as fan-created that supplements canonical or novel/game/comic-original material, it seems to me, ought to be accepted on the provisio that they be replaced with any new licensed material that might later be created (e.g., a fan-created image of Dr. Ree from Titan being accepted up until the cover of book three is published, at which point the Ree picture is replaced with a scan/crop of the cover from Orion's Hounds). -- Sci 16:45 19 April 2006 UTC


 * What if we vote to approve supplimental images rather than voting on whether to delete them. This is an issue that we sould be cautious with, so it seems better to me to not include them until they have been properly vetted. --Chops 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan to me. Should a new page be created entitled "Votes For Supplemental Approval" or some such? -- Sci 04:29 20 April 2006 UTC


 * My votes above were based more on copyright concerns and lack of permission to use than thinking supplementary visuals should be minimized. And I do have to argue against the idea that "conjecture of any kind is not what we're aiming for". Not when our main focus (canon + licensed materials) has so many novels, comics, games, and sourcebooks that contradict each other AND canon. If we did that we'd actually be stricter than MA. Some level of conjecture in inherent in what we're doing. What I think is the proper course is to keep such things relatively limited and clearly marked. Chops's approval proposal seems like a good plan: all images should have to "pass muster", and the top requirement is that they be properly sourced.--Emperorkalan 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In earnest, I sincerely doubt that Memory Beta is prominent enough, nor the images herein relevent enough, for anyone like Paramount or whatnot to claim copyright abuse. As for images taken from Star Trek Minutiae, that site's rules for reproduction simply state the credit must be given to STM in the form of a link and that the content cannot be directly linked, so I think we're good there. -- Sci 04:35 20 April 2006 UTC


 * Could the image of Vale/Jorga Fox be photoshopped to put her in a Starfleet uniform? Then you could call it an "artists interpretation". Although, I like Katee Sackoff better as Vale.--Turtletrekker 11:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to either of those options. In retrospect, I'm neutral about the "Vale/Jorga Fox" image. -- Sci 15:41 20 April 2006 UTC
 * That would be more "on topic" than what's there now. Or even moreso: the author of Harbinger has, on his website, a list of actor's he'd choose to play his characters. Or one of the Klingon troopers in the IKS Gorkon books is specifically modeled after Andre the Giant's character in "The Princess Bride". Those don't even have the "many fans think" ambiguity. I'd certainly like to leave room for such Photoshop jobs (but they should include a note clearly stating such "author's fantasy casting" as a source, and link or mention where someone can look it up).--Emperorkalan 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not fond of the idea of pictures for pictures sake, and it seems we could (eventually) have the problem of 8 or 9 images of a character never seen on a cover, all "well, this person thinks they look like this, and this person thinks they look like that". And at that point, how would we be able to say "Well, your right, your right, but yours is wrong." That's part of the imagination needed when reading novels. Personally, I think only paramount-sponsored images of characters should be here. If an author says "well, I made this person thinking they looked like so and so", then I think at the bottom in a background kind of section we should have their pic, and say "The author visualized this person when writing the character." - Lieutenant Ayala 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In a situation like that, where there's no concensus, the answer is :none of them. And you're right that character pictures should require some basis that's stricter than fans' fantasy casting. On the other hand, what about the sketches of the Stargazer and da Vinci crews? Which side of the line do they come down on? And what about new sketches of that sort? I share your concern: this site shouldn't load up with "graphical nicknacks", but I also don't want to arbitrarily forbid anything that may serve a useful purpose --Emperorkalan 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from, Ayala, but here's why I am a fan of having pictures wherever possible: The Web is by definition a visual medium, yet we're adapting information from a prose medium. It seems to me that in order for there to be an effective Wiki, images must be used whenever possible. I honestly don't think we're going to get into a situation where there are seventeen (or whatever) different fan-created images of an as-yet unofficially visualized character -- for one thing, I think that if that was to happen, it would have already, and for another, a "Nominate A Supplemental Image" page would help keep that from happening. Having said that, I also don't see why accomodating several different visualizations of a character/whatever should be a problem, since one can always simply add text links to hosted images at the end of the article if one chooses. -- Sci 05:07 21 April 2006 UTC


 * On a minor note, an RPG book had a Bolian insignia, so since the other is fanon it can be deleted. - Lieutenant Ayala 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got no beef with that. -- Sci 05:08 21 April 2006 UTC

Transcendence
Delete - The novel's the only source of info for Mr. Mitchel, and according to the novels page, it doesn't exist (yes, I am enjoying the poetic irony being as how much they both have to do with "Section 31"). Delete, as it's right, there is no evidence of a novel by that name. - Lieutenant Ayala 10:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alec Mitchel, Transcendence (novel)
 * Seconded. Delete. That goes beyond supplemental work, obviously. -- Sci 15:45 20 April 2006 UTC


 * Thirded. Delete Can Bok2384 shed some light on this? He's credited with the Mitchell/Transcendence stuff in the article. --Emperorkalan 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, should USS Yorktown (NCC-2033) also be deleted? Or just edit out the Mitchel parts if he's removed?(and if he's removed, also remove him from the list of Captains) --Emperorkalan 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like we can just remove sections, as the vessel did appear in the other book. We should probably make sure none of the linked pages refer to this guy (definitly remove him from the list) I removed the ones I found on Yorktown and Challenger. - Lieutenant Ayala 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)