Memory Beta:Deletion archive/2006

Image:Seal_of_United_Earth.jpg

VOTES

• neutral -- Sci 07:58 6 May 2006 UTC
• JPG --Chops 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

File:Seal of United Earth.gif

Seal of United Earth GIF

Seal of United Earth JPG

I uploaded that version of the UE emblem some weeks ago because I thought it worked better than the current UE seal. (It's larger and the pattern's a little different.) Shortly after I uploaded it, though, I realize that it was a jpg rather than a gif, making the replacement of the UE gif more difficult, and I also decided that I was no longer sure it was a better image; I realized I really liked the bright yellow of the gif, for instance, though I still don't like the way half of it is in shadow. I forgot about it until I looked over my upload log. So, I put it to ye good people of Memory Beta: Should we replace the UE gif with the jpg, or should we delete the jpg? For comparison, the two are included on either side of this paragraph and labelled. What say ye? -- Sci 08:02 6 May 2006 UTC

The JPG looks more official IMHO. Most official emblems don't have flashy embossing and shading. --Chops 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and Chops was the only one who voted, so it looks like we're getting a JPG. -- Sci 19:20 14 May 2006 UTC

Image:Bolarus.gif

Someone else (Chops) added this to be deleted in april, because of lack of the image's source. On the image page, it now says that the picture was from Star Trek Minutiae. Do we have promision to take pictures from that place? Peter R 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Minutiae gives general permission for image reproductions so long as it recieves credit and a link, IIRC. In any event, that particular image can go; I'd gotten it from Minutiae before I knew that there existed from a licensed source an emblem for Bolarus. -- Sci 03:07 4 OCT 2006 UTC

Category:Actors

Votes

delete--Emperorkalan 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC) deletePeter R 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Hadn't realized that "Category:Performers" already existed, so "Category:Actors" is redundant. So I recommend deleting my own creation.--Emperorkalan 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It sure is redundant, so I don't think that this will be a big debate... Peter R 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Klingon Academy Cover

File:KACover.jpg

Well we dont need two so one of these should go, I suggest the on the right as it a larger file and I presume this site has some kind of data limitations? -- 8of5 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Seal image

Image:PresidentBlue.jpg

Unused. Image:SealoftheFedPresident.jpg seems to be being used instead, okay to delete? - Lieutenant Ayala 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea. I created that image for use with templates, but then found a better way to format the regular presidential seal image. -- Sci 03:05 4 OCT 2006 UTC

Actors Category

Category:Actors, covered by performers so not needed. -- 8of5 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Montgomery and crew

This article was added by an anonymous user and no sources were cited. Attempts to communicate with the user has failed.--The Doctor 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the USS Montgomery with the Oberth-class vessel mentioned in the LUG game book, A Fragile Peace, so would like to remove this article from the vote.--The Doctor 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven Maresh

Like the article above, this article was added by an anonymous user and no sources were cited. Attempts to communicate with the user has failed.--The Doctor 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Matthew McKenzie

Like the article above, this article was added by an anonymous user and no sources were cited. Attempts to communicate with the user has failed.--The Doctor 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all three.--Turtletrekker 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chakuun

This article was created by a vandal, originally advertising a porn site.--Emperorkalan 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

However it is the name of a species from Star Trek: Early Voyages and an article I (or indeed someone else maybe) will be writting in the not to distant future. -- 8of5 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, keep--Emperorkalan 19:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

10 articles

I recommend these pages be deleted:

• \\"Far-star\\" bug
• Kuralyov
• Matthew McKenzie
• Michael Slone
• Sandbox
• Steven Maresh
• The Hard Room
• Tribble in Hell
• USS Reliant (Mid-24th Century)
• VGN

69.169.122.226 08:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Alec Mitchel, Transcendence (novel)

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)

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)

Detroyat class

Didn't realise that the class was from fanon blueprints. As fanon ship classes are not allowed, I vote for deletion of the page. --Bok2384 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Various articles from Memory Alpha

• Enterprise (XCV-330)
• USS Enterprise (CV-6)
• USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
• Enterprize
• Enterprise-J type
• USS_Enterprise (NCC-1701-J)
• Enterprise (OV-101)

DISCUSSION I originally did a speedy deletion of all of these articles, because they were clearly copied from Memory Alpha. Sci and an anonymous user have questioned that decision. I wasn't clear in in description box, so to clear the air, I've restored the articles and listed them here.

MA's liscense is not compatible with ours, so we should not legally have this here. --Chops 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No one wants legal hassles. --Turtletrekker 08:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What he said. Delete. --Emperorkalan 15:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and for future reference, I think "Copied directly from memory alpha" or something like it should be put in the deletion reason, so no ones confused. Copyright infringements should get immediate deletion. - Lieutenant Ayala 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'm re-deleting them now based on half the community's unanimous vote. I'll leave it here for the full seven days though. --Chops 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! The community's bigger than I thought. I'm going to undelete one again to give an example of what they all were. --Chops 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Entopy Effect and Fragile Glass

The Entopy Effect is a mispelled novel title and I'm not sure what Fragile Glass is supposed to be about.--Turtletrekker 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

VOTES

Delete "Entopy" Keep "Fragile Glass".--Turtletrekker 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Revised --Turtletrekker 07:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Entopy Effect only. Keep Fragile Glass --Emperorkalan 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC), revised--Emperorkalan 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete both --70.94.229.133 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Entopy Effect only -- 8of5 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete The Entopy Effect Keep Fragile Glass--Robert Treat 06:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

DISCUSION

Fragile Galss is the title of a Marvel comic, a one shot set in the mirror universe, and it's one I have a copy of so will be writing it up at some point, the current page may be abit sparten but it should exist. (8of5 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Delete the Entopy effect, because it's a misspelling, and the correct version, The Entropy Effect, already exists. I contributed Fragile Glass, and I believe the page should still exist--Robert Treat 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A little off point, but what is the purpose of the "Captain Mike's" link on the article?? The page it links to has no information on "Fragile Glass", nor is there any information when clicking through with the alphabetical index. --70.94.229.133 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was from Captain Mike's site that I got information on the characters. I've edited the article so the names will link to the page on Captain Mike's site where you can find them--Robert Treat 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

I've revised my vote now that Fragile Glass has been identified as a licensed comic. Just a reminder that noting sources is especially important for fairly obscure products like this.--Emperorkalan 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some info and the cover to the page and hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion.

I do find the similarities between our page here and the Memory Alpha page... interesting. --Turtletrekker 07:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alien words

Category:Alien words

Delete. I think these can be merged with the Species or a language, just having words seems like it would make things complicated. (for 'merged with species', see Kradians section "language".) - Lieutenant Ayala 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. At least for now. I don't think this is an especially useful category, and what it can do can be handled more efficiently through individual language lists. But it doesn't currently seem to be interfering with anything either, so I'll leave it someone else to convince me.--Emperorkalan 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Federation History of Warp drive

Pre-Federation History of Warp drive: Lots of detail, no sourcing, and misses details from post-"Star Trek: First Contact" licensed sources like The Sundered. (It might be from an RPG, but no source given).--Emperorkalan 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

VOTES

• replace--Emperorkalan 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete--70.94.229.133 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete --Chops 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete --Turtletrekker 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

• Unless someone can provide sourcing for the page, it should be replaced with something that sticks to canon and licensed sources.--Emperorkalan 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think the topic is unnecessarily broad, trying to pull together everything from Cochrane's early research all the way to the launch of the NX-01. Any replacement article would essentially repeat info that IMHO would more properly belong under specific topics like Zephram Cochrane, UESPA, Warp 5 Project, etc. --70.94.229.133 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is in fact copied from another Internet source. I tried about a week ago to contact the author through another place this was posted at, but to no avail. Yet another reason to delete. --Chops 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unsure about this one until reading Chops comment above. Delete.

Oh, and 70.94.229.133? On the Non-canon Star Trek Wiki:Nominations for featured articles page it says that "IP users are not permitted to nominate, nor vote in this process" and I would assume that the same would apply here. Registering is quick and painless. --Turtletrekker 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that, since I didn't write it. I'm not going to remove your votes because they're not the deciding votes by any means, but you should register if you want to continue voting. If there's a specific reason you want to maintain your anonymity, go ahead and add your two cents to the discussions, just don't vote. --Chops 08:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Misnamed image

I just uploaded an image to the wrong spelling of the name, and had forgot to crop it. So I've uploaded a croped version to the correct spelling so think the misnamed uncroped one should be deleted:

• Image:Tregar.jpg

--8of5 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Mirror Wars

The pages Star Trek Mirror Wars and List of Star Trek Mirror Wars Episodes because they are fan fiction. --The Doctor 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't vote, of course, but I'd be curious to hear why "Cjpwes" thinks this fanfic shouldn't be deleted, when the main page clearly states this isn't the place for fanfic, and given that he's already found the Expanded Universe wiki. --70.94.229.133 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see that curiosity, and raise it a point of order: just to remove any confusion, "Cjpwes" is 209.68.98.1, the poster who added those pages, and isn't elligible to vote here because he just typed in a username (hasn't actually registered a membership at this site). Of course, that could be just simple wikignorance (ignorance of the ways of the wiki), but we'd appreciate a little communication.--Emperorkalan 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of clearly states, up at the top of this page it clearly states the terms to be used in voting, and "Yea" is not one of them. I've updated my vote to use the proper term, and encourage others to do likewise.--Emperorkalan 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Yea delete - The Doctor 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Emperorkalan 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yea Delete and (borrowing Wikipedia terminologies) transwiki to Star Trek Expanded Universe wiki. (it's already in the Expanded Universe wiki.) -- Ensign Fridan 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• No User:Cjpwes/Cjpwes
• Delete--Turtletrekker 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tal'aura.jpg

File:Tal'aura.jpg

Tal'aura.jpg

TalAura.jpg

DISCUSSION The image to the left is the same image as the one to the right, which I uploaded to the Non-Canon Wiki months ago for use on the Romulan Star Empire page. Not that it's not a good image -- I just don't think we need two of it! ;) -- Sci 17:15 22 June 2006 UTC

VOTES

• Delete -- Sci 17:15 22 June 2006 UTC
• Delete --Emperorkalan 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete the following

• Image:Arcadiabridgeplan.jpg
• Image:Arcadia on wiki.jpg
• Image:ArcadiaPlaque.jpg
• Quantum slipstream drive]]
• Template:Starc
• Star Trek: Arcadia
• UFS Arcadia

They're all non-licensed (and I put them on there), so I don't think it needs a discussion. Thanks. --Sasoriza 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. - Lieutenant Ayala 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles of the Federation (document

VOTES

• delete -- 8of5 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete - per nom by 8of5. DukeEgr93 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete -- Agree w/8of5. --Emperorkalan 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• neutral -- Sci 20:41 10 July 2006 UTC
• Delete. - Lieutenant Ayala 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

Unnecessary redirect, could have just corrected the link on the Chancellor of the Andorian Empire page (which is exactly what I've done). -- 8of5 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I could really care less. I was just trying to be helpful in case someone in the future made a typo. Figured I'd just cover all bases, but whatever. -- Sci

Deleted. - Lieutenant Ayala 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded Movie Pages

Just mada a bit of a mess on the movies page, I was going to made pages for each movie and then link off of those to the novelizations and comic book adaptations but I got to Search for Spock and found a discussion message by Chops asking that exactly that arrangement not occur, so as a result I've got a couple of pages need deleteing:

• The Motion Picture
• The Wrath of Khan

and possibly these posters as the novelization pages already have the novel covers:

• Image:TMP poster.jpg
• Image:WOK poster.jpg

(8of5 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Done for movie pages, but are we sure we won't need the posters for the novels "background" section? I'll leave it for a while, maybe give it a vote. - Lieutenant Ayala 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

12 August 2161

VOTES:

• yes --Chops 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• no --Sci 23:57 30 April 2006 UTC
• neutral --Emperorkalan 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• no --Turtletrekker 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. - Lieutenant Ayala 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

I apologize for unilaterally deleting this page before. I should've used this page, but I'm not used to thinking this way yet. I actually have very little experience with the social dynamics of a wiki.

That said, why have a seperate page for one date? Can't this go under Federation Day? At the very least, it should be moved to 12 August. --Chops 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the date itself and the holiday are not the same thing. 12 August 2161 is a historical date; Federation Day is a holiday that celebrates the anniversary of that date. Putting them under one date makes about as much sense as putting 4 July 1776 under the same article as "Independence Day;" they're two separate things. One is a historic date, and the other is the celebration of that date. -- Sci 23:59 30 April 2006 UTC

Try these links, then tell me that they shouldn't be combined. Even Wikipedia doesn't try to make article about one particular date, and frankly I agree with them. --Chops 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to completely disagree with Wikipedia, there. For one, its "Independence Day" entry spends comparatively little time on the story of the Declaration and its signing and much more on the customs of the holiday itself. Seems to me that it's silly to combine the two, especially since we're likely to get much more historical information about the events of 12 August 2161 specifically (rather than about the Federation Day holiday observance) as the ENT Relaunch goes on over the next few years. -- Sci 01:29 1 May 2006 UTC

I'm neutral because while combining them would be more efficient, is it really a big enough deal to spend time debating this?--Emperorkalan 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I voted yes only because all of the information on this page could just as easily be put on the page for the year 2161, replacing the bit for that date that is in place. Although, I agree with Emperorkalan that this is not a big deal at all. There is no need to get too nit-picky about stuff like this, as it can only serve to aggrivate contributors and drive them away.--Turtletrekker 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but one of the reasons I decided to give it its own page is the issue of long-term thinking. Simply put, we're getting post-series ENT novels in the next few years, and one of the issues that will inevitably arise in those stories will be the events leading up to the founding of the Federation. Creating a special page for the day of the founding gives us an entry we can use for data about the events that lead up to 12 August 2161 -- information that wouldn't be appropriate for the "2161" entry (as the info would theoretically be too extensive to include in what is supposed to be a taciturn year page) or for a "Federation Day" entry that's supposed to be about the observance and practices of a holiday rather than about the historical event that prompted the holiday. Is this a huge deal? No; at worst, if I lose the deletion fight on this, I'd just ask that "12 August 2161" be made a redirect for whatever entry we end up putting the relevent data in. But I think that it's an important date worthy of its own entry for the reasons I've outlined above. -- Sci 11:13 1 May 2006 UTC

Alright, you convinced me. Changed to "no".--Turtletrekker 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thank yous, good sire. :) -- Sci 01:12 3 May 2006 UTC

But shouldn't that kind of stuff be under Federation history? I vote Yes, a specific day probably shouldn't get it's own page. For that matter, information on 'leading up to the Federation' shouldn't even be on a page titled 12 August 2161, as it's not about what happened on that particular day. Maybe if we had a bunch (and I mean lots) of info on of stuff happening on the particular day, like say, the Romulan war ended, Andorians and Vulcans signed a peace treaty, all the heads of government met on earth, and the Federation was voted into-w/e. But I doubt the stuff that would end up on this page would all have happened on 12 Aug, most of it 'leading up to it.' I think stuff like leading up to it, and the day, should be on both Federation history section and Federation day. And as far as I know, we don't even have pages for particular days yet. Although I can see this happening in the (not to distant) future, now that I see many novels use the traditional Earth calendar.- Lieutenant Ayala 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, Memory Beta doesn't seem to have dedicated history articles. Rather, our practice so far has been to integrate the history of an interstellar state into that state's main page. (I for one don't like Memory Alpha's practice of creating separate history pages, because I don't see that a state and its history are even truly separate topics.) But I don't know that putting extensive info leading up to the Federation's existence on the Federation's page would be good, nor putting it on "Federation Day," since, again, that article should be about the holiday practices commemorating a historical event, not about the event itself. "12 August 2161" gives us a place to put information about the founding on, it gives us a place to put non-technical descriptions of the day itself on (Trip's recollection of San Francisco being incredibly quiet, etc.), and it gives us a page where we can put historical info about the events that led up to the founding upon. (A "How 12 August 2161 Happened" subsection.) You point out now that, yes, we lack info -- but we have every reason to suspect that that will change in the near future with the ENT Relaunch. -- Sci 21:09 7 May 2006 UTC

Wikipedia's practice would be to have a summary of a world's country's history on its main page, and then a more detailed "History of" article if and when there was sufficient material. So the Federation page would have sections on its founding, its history and so on, but if there was enough material on a topic to make the page unwieldy, it could be summarised and broken off to another page ("History of the Federation" or whatever). Might this be something to consider? Vashti 22:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for that practice and prefer Memory Beta's current practice of integrating the history into the interstellar state's main page. In any event, information leading to the founding of the UFP -- not the history of the UFP itself -- it seems to me ought to go in an entry separate from "United Federation of Planets" or "Federation Day," hence my creation of "12 August 2161." -- Sci 02:28 8 May 2006 UTC

Can you point me to an example of that practice in action, please? I'm obviously new here and see that a few planet pages, such as Earth, have history information on them. I'm a little concerned that it might become unwieldy as more information is added to the page. I'd like to see what you mean.

12 August 2161 has the disadvantage that nobody is ever likely to search for it. You might search for something like "founding of the Federation" or "history of the Federation". The info is going to be mainly political history of the planets involved, but it can't be replicated on all of those pages - it seems to me that the events leading up to the Federation's creation should be on its page, as prehistory of an entity is still part of its history. Vashti 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(At the moment I'm inclined to vote merge and redirect to UFP on this, as the information here shouldn't be lost. I'm not sure if this is a valid vote under your system, though. :) Vashti 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. I suppose I would've proposed a merge, but we don't have a template for that yet. How 'bout this: in the case of a positive vote, I'll move the article to Talk:United Federation of Planets so that it can be integrated into that and/or other pages.

Also, I think a good example of an overflow of history is Romulan Star Empire. It's as long as Memory Alpha's Romulan Star Empire and Romulan history combined, and still doesn't cover much more than canon. If we add in information from several books that describe the early days of the Romulans, not to mention the insights into "modern" romulan culture, the page will be huge! (Of course, that's a debate for another time. It's only relevent in that Federation History will become at least as large, and will eventually need its own page.) --Chops 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and we seem to be at a tie. -- Sci 19:20 14 May 2006 UTC

Another page for deletion

• ‎Sikon

69.169.122.226 08:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Page for deletion

• Second star on the right...

69.169.122.226 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:GornHegemony.gif

A fan-made (though approved) supplemental image until we could find a canon (er, book-canon that is) emblem - which we have. Image:Gorn Hegemony insignia - STC Academy.png. As I don't know if we asked the Minutia to use it, and we don't need it anymore, seems time to delete it. - Lieutenant Ayala 17:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well. Time for it to go, then. -- Sci 17:58 15 OCT 2006 UTC

Junk DNA

VOTES:

• yes -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete -- Jdvelasc 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

Not sourced and only tenuously linked to star trek. -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added the 'deletion' template to the article -- Jdvelasc 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call, I forgot to add them for the ones below too, have done so now. -- 8of5 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Fleet

VOTES:

• yes -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

Fanon and so far as I can tell not relative to anything else here -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

B'nok faction

VOTES:

• yes -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

Sourced from a deleted scene

Enterprise C1-21

VOTES:

• yes -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• yes --Seventy 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

Reads as nonsense and no idea what it is or if it actually exists. -- 8of5 22:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

En'ock tu Ch'enock

VOTES

• yes -- 8of5 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION Sourced from the not yet, and quite far off Star Trek: Online, I don't feel it's appropriate to start adding info from things that don’t even exist yet, a note in italics about something on the end of an article noting a possible appearance maybe but new articles just for something which could very easily change or not even exist at all I think is wrong. -- 8of5 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weyoun image

File:Weyoun.jpg

old image

new image

I suggest deleting the older image of Weyoun in favour of the more recently submitted one which is a higher quality image. Normally I'd go for keeping different images of things on the article but these two are very similar so I think the older one should go. -- 8of5 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

VOTES

• yes -- 8of5 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• yes -- The Doctor 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Armada Locutus image

new image

Similar to the Weyoun image we have two similar, one rather better I feel, images of Locutus from Star Trek: Armada. I suggest deleting the smaller black backgrounded one.

VOTES

• yes -- 8of5 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)