This is the Archive of the Memory Alpha:Deletion archive featuring articles from the Deletion pages after it has been resolved by deletion of the page in subject during the year 2006.

20 October 2006 Edit

SoloTrek II Edit

Delete Merge - Article is about a non-canon, freeware (i.e. unlicensed) Trek game. -- Renegade54 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Are we sure it is unlicensed? Being freeware does not imply that. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not sure about the license... I did a search on the web, and there's not much out there. Typically, though, a company like Paramount charges (usually big bucks) for a license, which would mean that you would charge for the end product to recoup your investment, not give it away. In this case, I'd say guilty until proven innocent. :) -- Renegade54 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely could be stripped down and merged with one of the fan games things perhaps? Just a thought... -- Sulfur 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, I think. It would need to come way down in detail, though. -- Renegade54 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

unused templates Edit

Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701SeniorStaff, Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701-DSeniorStaff, Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701-ESeniorStaff, Template:USSVoyagerSeniorStaff 
Delete --Alan del Beccio 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We also have Template:EnterpriseNX-01SeniorStaff, which is used at the moment. I'm not sure if this specific type of template really makes sense (or, at least, if its inclusion on character pages does), but we should either delete all of them or keep all of them. At the moment, I'd say delete all, but I'd like to hear some additional voices on their potential usefulness first... -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think these are particularly needed, IMO. An individual starship's article should already have the senior crewmembers listed, and that starship's page should be linked on the crewmembers' articles, so people can just refer to that. Um, I'm not sure if any of that made sense, so to translate: Delete all. --From Andoria with Love 07:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted the four not being used, but don't have time to de-link the one being used at the moment. --From Andoria with Love 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So, I did the whole work, and then HE just deleted it... ;) -- Cid Highwind 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Saavedra" redirects Edit

Saavedra's species, List of Saavedra's species 
Deletion template added by User:Bp
  • Apparently misspelled redirects, though I don't know the story behind that - unless that misspelling was given in official sources, delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Theese pages were moved from here when we changed the spelling of Saavdra, which created these redirects. The talk is at Talk:Saavdra. There is no source for Saavedra except it kindof sounds that way. That's why I didn't {{delete}} the rd Saavedra, it's a likely phonetic spelling for someone searching. That's how I heard it when I watched the episode. --Bp 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons Edit

Nuclear weapons

Content of the article seems to be mostly conjecture and speculation. Most everything canon relating to the subject can be found at atomic weapon. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

they could be merged in one article. -<unsigned>
As they were. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

17 October 2006 Edit

Door Edit

This article was previously brought up for deletion over two months ago and was kept based only on one vote. As I stated in the article's talk page, if the article was not improved to include door technology and not simply a definition of what a door is and the various types of oodrs, I would bring it back up for deletion after one month's time. Well, it's been two months, and next to nothing's been done with this. So, here it is again. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, there is more that could be done with this article, but no one is willing to do it, and I do not like leaving this as a "placeholder". At this point, that is all that it is. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we have a "not a dictionary" rule, not a "not an encyclopedia" rule... ;) But anyway, this is not enough. I agree, there could be an article about door technology in general although I'm not sure about even that - but for the moment, delete. -- Cid Highwind 09:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wagon Train Edit

Wagon Train 
Not needed; info could be found on Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek, Star Trek: The Original Series, and/or Star Trek is...; Wagon Train itself does not need its own article. -- From Andoria with Love 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Not a dictionary", "sub-stub" - delete. -- Cid Highwind 09:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

13 October 2006 Edit

Rakosa IV Edit

Rakosa IV

As far as I can tell Rakosa IV is not mentioned in the episode Dreadnought (episode), at least I cannot find it in the transcript. Perhaps it was on a visual? Either way, the information in the article is actually about Rakosa V, which is in the dialogue, and was the target of the missile. I only suggest it was maybe a visual because this was listed in the "references" section of the episode article. -- OuroborosCobra talk 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, it seems so `BlockProofed User 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • He didn't vote, he just left a comment. That said, the author of this article apparently mistook Rakosa V for Rikosa IV, so a simple merge may be in order, although the resulting redirect would need to be deleted. However, if the planet was seen in a graphic (Jorg? :D), then it does deserve an article, but it needs to be rewritten. -- From Andoria with Love 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rakosa IV is not mentioned or seen in the episode. All we have is the map of the "Rakosa system" which can be seen here. The system seems to feature 6 planets, so there *are* Rakosa I,II,III,IV,V+VI, which are seen on screen (as a graphic). There's nothing however, that we could say about the planets apart from them being in that system, so I'd say we create "Rakosa system" and Delete Rakosa IV. -- Jörg 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed with deletion and creation of system article. Make it so, as that bald dude who drinks too much tea likes to say. ;) -- From Andoria with Love 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Moved to "Rakosa system" and deleted the redirect. -- From Andoria with Love 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Requiem for a Martian Edit

Requiem for a Martian

Non-canon, and based on the article, I'm not sure this even ever existed. Too many qualifiers. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole point of the article is that the thing never existed, at least as an episode, and to keep people from being taken in by an all-too-comon hoax.
  • Which is exactly why it should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the canon Trek universe or anything to do with the official Trek franchise. If anything, it can be noted in one of our parody or homage pages. --From Andoria with Love 04:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think, based on the contents, it even belongs there. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Get rid of it. However, there still should be some room on this site for very Trek related items such as Free Enterprise and the pilot for Roswell, that has Frakes in it and some premise about Star Trek Enterprise. --Alan del Beccio 04:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If we want to have an article about "Free Enterprise", this one should become a redirect to that page. However, I'm not sure about FE - is it official, or fan produced? Is it within our current scope? If not, it probably needs to go. For the record, I haven't heard of this "common hoax" until just now, and 46 google hits for that title aren't that many, either. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Free Enterprise and its upcoming sequel are films written by Star Trek fans. Director and co-writer Robert Meyer Burnett was once a freelance Star Trek consultant for Viacom. He then went on to become an editor for films being shown at Star Trek: The Experience and made an appearance on Trekkies 2. That is the extent of his association with the Star Trek franchise as far as I know. So, Free Enterprise is basically a fan film, although it's more along the lines of a parody. Should it have its own article? No. Should it be mentioned somewhere on MA? Most certainly yes. --From Andoria with Love 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Passes Edit

Look non-canon to me. Probably qualifies as an immediate deletion since it contains little info and thus serves no purpose. --From Andoria with Love 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Jörg 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No useful content, agree with (immediate) deletion. -- Cid Highwind 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

5 October 2006Edit

Police state Edit

Police state

According to Jorg, this term has never actually been used in any episode or movie in Star Trek. It certainly was not used in the episode that is "cited". While a number of species seen in Star Trek may qualify as "police states", I do not think the term should get an article. We are not a dictionary, and without the term being used, we could only really use this as a dictionary definition, or as a pile of speculation. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, although it is well-written. Oh, well. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Jaz talk 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

27 September 2006Edit

War hero Edit

War hero
{{delete page}} was added by Renegade54. Looks like a dictionary definition to me, so should be reworked into something useful, or deleted. On a sidenote, I don't think "war hero" qualifies as a "title". -- Cid Highwind 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. IMHO, this should be reflected on Li Nalas's page, not a whole new page for one person. --Willie 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term was only used to refer to Li Nalas and Tieran. Not enough for an article. --Jörg 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates: copyvio1, copyvio2 Edit

Copyvio1, Template:Copyvio2 : I don't know what to make of these two. We already have a more verbose Template:Copyvio (and also Template:Copyvioimage for images). Copyvio1 doesn't tell us anything about what's being done with former content of the page (or even the page itself - are we supposed to just leave that message there? Delete the page at some point in the future? Replace the message with content as if nothing ever happened?) - while Copyvio2 creates a situation where, apparently, a possible copyright violation stays in the article while its being discussed on the talk page. I think both are unnecessary, because they just lead to confusion by allowing three different ways to handle a copyvio situation. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete unnecessary. --From Andoria with Love 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should have one way to handle a (possible) copyright violation. -- Renegade54 14:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan fiction Edit

Nyac and Nya

Both are fan fiction. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both of them. --Jörg 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ----Willie 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

zebra Edit

Not cited, no pages link to it, and nothing comes up in the search. --Alan del Beccio 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • this animal doesnt occurr in the trek universe and shoul be deleted -- commander data (was unsigned).
  • delete. no cite, etc. -- Sulfur 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm curious, though, why Commander Data created the article in the first place, then voted to delete it. -- Renegade54 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cancer of the cervix Edit

Cancer of the cervix
Another prize-winning article from Commander data that has nothing to do with the Star Trek universe. I think it deserves an immediate deletion myself, but I guess I'll do things by the book. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. *sigh* -- Renegade54 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. *????* ---- Willie 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit


This was apparently created because it was in the "Most wanted articles list". As it is entirely non-canon, and non-Trek related, and we are not a general encyclopedia, I think it should be deleted, and the redlinks that put this on the "Most wanted" list should be removed (maybe made into external links?), rather than make this article. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

well, i just scrolled thru the wanted articles list and there was a mess there. anyway there were 4 links pointing to this non existent article so i created it. but i guess u'r write. there's no need for it.
I was already working on removing the links - the article is now orphaned, and I agree with deletion. -- Cid Highwind 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. -- Renegade54 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a "Very short pages with little or no definition or context", and therefore qualified as an immediate deletion. So... deleted. --From Andoria with Love 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it was also previously voted for deletion... another qualifier for immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lazy me, not going through the archives :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

18 September 2006Edit

Infant Edit

  • As noted on the talk page, this page really doesn't fit the mold of the rest of this encyclopedia. The content found within, and further suggested, would better fit in with the physiology of the species in question, as is essentially the case with the Jem'Hadar reference. --Alan del Beccio 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if - as the original creator of the page - my vote's worth a damn, but if it winds up being deleted, that won't change the fact that a discrete article or series of articles discussing the concept of the life cycle in great detail is something I enthusiastically support (and will be happy to work on). If that means more work on life span that's not a bad idea, likewise if one of the admins supports the idea and has a suggestion of how to implement it. Persist1 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that this page'll be deleted any time now, so: is a single article allowing for life cycle comparison between races still on the table? If so, ought I proceed, and how? Persist1 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess if it's a life cycle comparison you want, you should write it into the life span article. Since there's two votes for deletion (counting Alan's nomination) along with my vote for merge, I'll go ahead and merge the two articles (not now, though) and probably delete the resulting redirect. --From Andoria with Love 13:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless the last part is merged with the Jem'Hadar article (which it probably is), delete it. It has no real use unless soemone can tie it to and episode diretly.--CaptainCaca 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The life cycle should be on the individual species page, and should vary so much only a generic overview should be needed at life span. We don't need a "comparative alien life spans" article because that's not an article, its an essay. - AJ Halliwell 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

14 September 2006 Edit

UFOP: StarBase 118 RPGEdit

Article about a fan gaming site. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Alan del Beccio 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Renegade54 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ach! Delete, laddie!!!! --From Andoria with Love 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not that I know if my vote counts. --Willie 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and yes your vote does count. Please make sure to bold your choice for delete or keep as I just did though, thanks! - Enzo Aquarius 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Renegade54 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

12 September 2006Edit

Niner Edit

  • I'm partial to DS9, yet I've personally never referred to myself as this, nor have I heard this of reference before now. I'm afraid I don't see the need for this, if indeed this "subset" of Trekkies exists. --Alan del Beccio 05:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the reference does exist, but I don't think we need a seperate article for it. Perhaps merge it with Trekkie? However, if it is found to be made up, by all means, delete it. --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's some (any?) source for this. Is it mentioned in the Trekkies movies? ST:TM? ST:C? I've never heard it used before. - AJ Halliwell 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless this can be found elsewhere. I personally have only heard of it on MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, like I said, if no proof (beyond Wikipedia, of course) can be found of this term's existance, it should be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

8 September 2006Edit

Transphasic Chroniton Torpedoes Edit

Simply put, non-canon weapon. - Enzo Aquarius 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Picard Song Edit

The Picard Song
Non-canon, and I don't like the song :P

I suppose this could be put in one of the parody pages... --OuroborosCobra talk 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

- MERGE Dracorat 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I love the song, makes me laugh, but the articles should be removed. I vote in agreement for deletion. Carbonari 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-Merge I don't see any issue in putting this in the parodies either. Though in the long run, I might want to fight for a change from parody to homage Exolinguist 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And then what? Fact is, this is one song by a group unrelated to Trek in any official way. I never heard of that group before, and although some page claims that this song "has become an internet meme", I only heard about it on #memory-alpha last week, when someone asked: "ANYONE KNOWS THE PICARD SONG???", about two dozen times in a row... If we want to keep this, whether on a separate page or on a list of parodies/homages/whatever, how many unofficial songs by some hobby band would follow? Even that band alone also has "The Worf Song" and "Frame of Mind" (apparently something about Riker). Unless we want to catalogue all amateur internet songs related to Trek, or someone is able to explain why this, but not another, I vote to delete. -- Cid Highwind 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, good points. I myself am well acquainted with the song, being a frequent visitor to YouTube and YTMND, where it is used widely. I'm not saying we should keep every hobby song created, it's just that this one has become sort of an internet phenomenon. Having said that, I don't really care whether it's merged or deleted, but due to its popularity, the former might be best. --From Andoria with Love 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... three votes for delete, three votes for merge. This would normally prove to be a problem... however, Exolinguist had not been a member of MA for a full week at the time he voted, which means his vote must be struck out as per the deletion policy. But I don't think that would matter because I don't believe three deletes and two merges do not equal a 2/3 majority. Anyone care to confirm that before I merge it? --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I change my vote to delete. Okay, it go bye-bye now. --From Andoria with Love 02:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford Edit

Here we go again... Gerald Ford and his wife were not seen in the timestream. The viewpoint changes from a close-up of Jonathan Archer with images of Richard M. Nixon, Mao Zedong and the piece symbol behind him to a wider shot with Daniels and Archer that features Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev shaking hands, the Concorde, a poster of Ruhollah Khomeini, cooling towers and Ronald Reagan being sworn in. There is no Gerald Ford before or after these scenes, certainly not represented by the image that is on his page currently. I will work on the timestream now and upload screenshots of the images seen for further proof, but Gerald Ford is just not there, so Delete. --Jörg 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I trust Jorg when he says this. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is it with this Gerald Ford thing, anyway? -- Renegade54 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn I saw that Gerald Ford image in the timestream, but then again I dont have any photo shop software where I can download the timestream photo, the picture I thought I saw looked just like the one I put on his page, then again it is hard to see all those images. Were there pictures of somebody else doing something similar in there? If someone could have a complete gallery of all time stream images it would help.Chicago103 11:41, 1 September 2006 (CST)

1 September 2006Edit

Category:User ptEdit

  • not seeing this as either being used or, at the moment, required, anymore now than it was two or three months ago, when it was originally created. --Alan del Beccio 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It was created (along with the corresponding pt userboxes) as part of the MA Babel project at the request of an apparent native Portuguese-speaking contributor, who was notified of it's creation, and who then never made use of it. -- Renegade54 03:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If it hasn't been used for 2-3 months, might as well delete it. - Enzo Aquarius 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. No need for it if it has not been used after this long. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Forum threadsEdit

The following forum threads seem to be just idle discussion not concerned with either questions about MA itself (Ten Forward), or reference questions (Reference Desk). While some policy about how to deal with forum pages is missing, I'm putting those here for deletion:

  • Forum:Your mirror universe persona
  • Forum:Did they forget about the rest?
  • Forum:Star Trek Season Final's On T.V.
  • Forum:Skype
  • Forum:Wikipedia is communism idiots
  • Forum:Errata I've noticed, and why I think you are all crackheads

...although I really love the title of that last one. ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • comment: Deleting forum threads is unnecessary, IMO. It doesn't hurt anything to keep them. Also, after an admin summarily deleted a few threads without any discussion, I posted this: Forum:Deleting Ten Forward Threads. --Bp 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think keeping every one is a bad idea, these particular ones being the examples of ones I wouldn't want to keep. They serve no purpose, and how do we tell people "Don't do something" and then keep it anyway? That'd be like the a new user "don't create non-canon ship pages" and then when they do, leave it cause it's not harming anything. Although, the last one does make me want to use the word 'skedaddle' more often... - AJ Halliwell 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Forum threads are different than non-canon ship pages. Non-canon ship pages are cancer if they get linked into the MA web. Forum threads are not linked to anything, they are comments archived naturally as they age. The forum name space is a self contained place for discussions and there is no reason to delete any, unless they are google link spam or something else malicious. But, if we are going to delete threads, then it should be like this through the pfd process, not just let admins arbitrarily decide what is a worthwhile discussion and what isn't, which is what I was reacting to when Jaz deleted those threads without any discussion. --Bp 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We either want off-topic threads, or we don't - and apparently, according to what is enumerated at the top of the Ten Forward page, we don't. I deleted one thread recently (a bug report), moved several to a more appropriate place (the Reference Desk), and those remain - idle discussions without relevancy to MA, and without any place to be moved to. Why should we not delete them, if we didn't want them in the first place, according to several notes on different pages? -- Cid Highwind 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Naming conventions aside (we don't need the title to scream at us), this article is either non-canon or fan-made. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Scary now. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Voyager class? Cloak? Transwarp? This is truely a steak through a canon-man's heart :P - Enzo Aquarius 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been moved to USS Argo. That should be deleted, along with the remaining redirect, USS ARGO. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Um, wow indeed. - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stack PierceEdit

Incorrectly credited as playing Adm. Haden, when he in fact has nothing to do with Star Trek. He is listed on, but the ever resourceful Jörg confirmed that the character was played by John Hancock in both of his appearances. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


This appears to be based solely on a non-canon source. Delete. -- Renegade54 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

29 August 2006Edit


This article appears to be a viral mistake. --Bp 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I checked the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Concordance, it's in none of those books. I searched the script of "Blood Oath" and every other TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and TOS episode. There's toranium and noranium but no koranium. I searched my notes I took when watching the episode years ago, nothing. I watched it in fast-foward with subtitles on, nothing. I couldn't be bothered to sit down and watch the whole episode, so if anyone wants to volunteer, go ahead. Until then, I vote delete. --Jörg 13:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I checked the "Blood Oath" script and checked most of the screencaps for the episode on TrekCore and I found no mention or visual of the word Koranium in the screencaps. Thus I vote delete. - Enzo Aquarius 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Craig Anton Edit

Craig Anton 
Actor who had nothing to do with Star Trek. Should be like a non-canon entry and be deleted after two days. --From Andoria with Love 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

25 August 2006Edit

Category:Memory Alpha images with channel-IDs Edit

Memory Alpha images with channel-IDs: Besides this category being currently unused, I really don't think it's necessary, especially since such an image can simply be slapped with a pna template and also since we already have this cat. Also... was this category ever agreed upon? It was created by an anon nearly a year ago, and appears to have remained blank since. In any case, it's not needed anymore, IMO. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Images needing clean-up is more than capable of handling images that need to be cleaned up, be it because they are bad quality images or have those channel-IDs. In both cases it usually means that the image has to be replaced by a DVD screencap anyway, so, one category is enough. --Jörg 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 'cause I don't even know what a channel ID is! :P -- Renegade54 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unused templates Edit

Certain items in Special:Unusedtemplates
First off, I'm not saying delete them all, just the ones we really don't need. Just to clarify that. ;) Anyways, some of which I'm sure we don't need are Template:Weyounsaga (see its talk page), Template:DeletionTemplate (again, see the talk page), Template:Yesterday, Template:Tomorrow month, Template:Tomorrow cell, and Template:Mirror; those should be deleted. Others, such as the TrekHistory templates and the senior staff templates were created but never used, so do we still need them? When voting, please specify which to delete. --From Andoria with Love 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:Weyounsaga, Template:DeletionTemplate (don't think we need a seperate template for deleting templates, IMHO), Template:Yesterday, Template:Tomorrow month, Template:Tomorrow cell. I am mixed on Template:Mirror. It actually seems like an interesting idea to me. While many articles can be easily distinguished by their titles, which include "(mirror)", some do not, like the Regent's flagship. This template could be used to distinguish those articles, and would of course get used on all mirror universe articles. For the moment, I am voting keep on Template:Mirror. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's create subsections for each deletion suggestion. Otherwise this will just get chaotic... ;)

Template:Weyounsaga Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Delete by OuroborosCobra, see above.

  • Delete. If we start to use this, we'd have to create navs for each major character and place it on relevant episode articles. This is just not useful enough, if we already have a list of appearances on the character article. -- Cid Highwind 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:DeletionTemplate Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Delete by OuroborosCobra, see above.

  • Delete, after creating a bunch of useless templates, this was the most logical next step :) - AJ Halliwell 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yesterday Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Delete by OuroborosCobra, see above.

  • Delete. Can someone name an actual use for this? - AJ Halliwell 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tomorrow month Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Delete by OuroborosCobra, see above.

Template:Tomorrow cell Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Delete by OuroborosCobra, see above.

Template:Mirror Edit

Suggestion by Shran, Keep by OuroborosCobra, see above.

  • Delete. See Template talk:Mirror for reasoning. -- Cid Highwind 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because as cool as it would look in black with red font - this really serves no purpose, as the first sentence of most Mirror Universe articles is something like "so and so was this in the mirror universe." - AJ Halliwell 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted all templates that were brought up for deletion. --From Andoria with Love 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:UT Edit

UT: Unused, potentially harmful (according to WP, signature templates cause server trouble by the database overhead they produce). -- Cid Highwind 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, kinda funny since someone who shall remain nameless wanted me to use a template instead of the long code I use now. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This makes me think of universal translator, and something to do with the whole languages thing - misleading... - AJ Halliwell 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoti Edit

The "Hoti" were never mentioned in that episode. The Hopi Native Americans are what Jadzia Dax was talking about, and that is what she said. No alien race here. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the article's histories. I think we can delete the redirect though. ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beam me up, Scotty Edit

Completely uncited, both the "in-universe" as also the "production POV" parts. Besides, do we need separate articles for catchphrases now? Somehow, I'm not really sure about that :) -- Cid Highwind 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If the information in the article is accurate, though, it would make a good background entry on an appropriate article page, probably Montgomery Scott. -- Renegade54 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. C'mon, this is probably the biggest catchphrase in Star Trek history! Plus the fact that Kirk never actually said it, which should be noted in any true Star Trek wiki. The article might a bit of cleanup, but it's hardly worth deleted. --Species 8675309 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is currently a stub. Being as it was never actually mentioned/said, what content could possibly be added to this page? - AJ Halliwell 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Jaz talk 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nucleogenic radiation Edit

Nucleogenic radiation

This is a redirect to Nucleonic radiation, created by someone who thought the quote from "The Cloud" was "nucleogenic radiation". It is not. While the cloud is "Nucleogenic", the quote is as follows (from a transcript):

TORRES: If the life form has a nucleogenic structure, nucleonic radiation ought to assist its healing process. A nucleonic beam along the edges of the breach should theoretically promote regeneration.

As you can see, it is not "nucleogenic radiation". --OuroborosCobra talk 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This is what happens when you have an episode reference both nucleogenic and nucleonic a ton of times, my bad! Please delete. - Enzo Aquarius 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When the creator of a page votes for its deletion, I think that should qualify it for an immediate delete. So... deleted. --From Andoria with Love 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

21 August 2006Edit

Various non-canon Edit

JZ and the Bad Boys, HMS Camden Lock, Space Core starships and Spaceforce

Although the later ones seem to take all credibility away, we should probably look into the JZ one, as there was some kind of music in that scene that may have been real. The rest seem to be made up (What Price Honor?, I suspect) but may be fanon. - AJ Halliwell 15:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Regarding the "Jz" article, Jörg checked the episode earlier and only found a commercial playing at that point in the episode, not a song as described. -- Cid Highwind 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete allll. It should be noted that absolutely nothing this ridiculouis made it into "What Price Honor?". -- Captain M.K.B. 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. -- Renegade54 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I'll check into that JZ and the Bad Boys thing, though. --From Andoria with Love 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've checked "Carpenter Street", which I'm assuming this is from. The "song" played when Archer and T'Pol start the car is actually music playing in the background while a deejay or announcer spurts out a bunch of stuff. I also checked the credits and there's no reference to a "JZ and the Bad Boys", nor does a Google search turn up anything. So I think that, along with the three others, can safely be deleted (as I voted above). --From Andoria with Love 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ro Pagina principala Edit

Appears to just be a remake of the main page with the main sentence switched to another language, possibly an attempt to make another language MA, inside the English MA itself. - Enzo Aquarius 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to translate the main page to Romanian as stated on but i didn't knew where to place this.Lacisoft 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand where you got confused there. For Step One, the translating of the articles is meant to be done off-site, such as in a Notepad document. You need to complete a wiki request form as stated in Step Two, then you are able to make your own Memory Alpha wiki in your language once it's set up. Hope this clears some things up! - Enzo Aquarius 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although if there is actual interest in a Romanian version, perhaps a Romanian version of MA should be created? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek (Reborn)Edit

This is a non-canon fan fiction. Perhaps it should get a mention in "fan films" or something, but not its own article. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge with fan films & delete. --From Andoria with Love 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've merged this with "fan films" and deleted the redirect. To explain all the crap that happened while doing so, I accidently started to merge the article with fan fiction rather than fan films, so I had to undo all that. Yeah, not fun. (Thanks for the help, Alan.) However, even after all the chaos to which I subjected MA, "fan fiction" may actually be a more suitable place for this. But you know what – I'll let someone else deal with that. For now I'm calling it a night. So good night, an good luck. :-P --From Andoria with Love 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Article has since been unmerged from "Fan films" and merged with "fan fiction websites" by Captain Mike. Thanks again, Mike! :) --From Andoria with Love 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

19 August 2006Edit

Assignment: Earth (TV series) Edit

Aside from being an orphaned page, this is rather redundant. Any information placed here can simple be placed in the background section of "Assignment: Earth". --Alan del Beccio 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tailheads Edit

Copy of info already at Unnamed humanoids (24th century). Changed to a redirect, but I don't think we need it. I'd think this'd be an immediate deletion, but I wanted to make sure. - AJ Halliwell 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It might be useful as a redirect for people putting it into the search box, like we do with the non-canon redirects. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But this title, "tailhead", is not just non-canon (=at least commonly used in publications, so that several people might look for that name), it is randomly invented by someone and might not serve any purpose as a search help. I still believe that we should avoid inventing our own terminology - so, delete. -- Cid Highwind 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I see your point. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term tailhead originates from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. Here, it is stated in the entry for "Tapestry": "Station Earhart (...) populated by many of Michael Westmore's aliens from DS9, such as buck-"toothed" alien and the "tailhead";". I guess this means the term was either coined by Michael Westmore himself or by Larry Nemecek. I don't think we need the redirect, though, so Delete. --Jörg 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing systems Edit

Currently orphaned; contains a link to images of alien language graphics. I really don't think this is necessary, and if it were, what could we link it to? Delete. --From Andoria with Love 08:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If it were called "writing system", without the plural, it could be linked from different species articles, but if we did that, it would end up having to be little more than a dictionary definition. Therefore I vote delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Jörg 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless we can have a category serving the same purpose. Are there categories of images? --<unsigned (anon)>
  • NOTE: The above anon was the original author of the article in question.
  • Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 10:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pain subroutine Edit

I checked with Jörg and neither of us (particularly Jörg, who can search through all the scripts and transcripts downloaded onto his computer in seconds) was able to find a reference to a "pain subroutine". Someone may have gotten this confused with ethical subroutine or something similar. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 13:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond Edit

Jörg has discovered, via the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, that the wind dancer was "the face of a made-up clown..." Like Bea Arthur before him, this is another example of IMDb misinformation and should be treated the same way – with deletion. --From Andoria with Love 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, ok, delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it weren't him, then delete. -- Sulfur 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

14 August 2006Edit

Star Trek: The OngoingMission Edit

Delete: Appears to be an "article" for the RPG forums found at [1]. I don't think that external websites get their own article on MA; can't seem to find the specific policy for it though. - Intricated talk page 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, and 'ongoingmission'? intriguing grammar. - Enzo Aquarius 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was considered a delete when I initially saw it, but decided to wait until someone else pulled it up, since I couldn't find where it might have originally come from. Now I know. delete -- Sulfur 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Wright (actor) Edit

Orphaned page. It has a "see Tom Wright" link on it. I'm not entirely certain why it needs to exist to be honest. -- Sulfur 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Sasoriza 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In cases like these (article title with qualifier where none is necessary), please check Wikipedia. They have two templates in use to link to MA articles. One that allows to specify an article title here, and one that just takes the title the article has on Wikipedia. This often leads to situations where Wikipedia links to a wrong page - and sometimes, someone fixes this by creating a redirect here on MA. Instead, the template call on Wikipedia should be fixed, which I just did in this case. This page can now safely be deleted. -- Cid Highwind 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes some sense. Thanks for the pointer on that one. I'll keep my eyes open for it in the future. -- Sulfur 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the page as it qualified for a speedy delete and asked the user who created it to stop, as he's done it about three times now. --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although this was an immediate deletion, I have archived this discussion for future reference in case anyone wants to know why these redirects shouldn't be created and how to fix the links at Wikipedia and what-not. --From Andoria with Love 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

10 August 2006Edit

pms-ing templates Edit

User pms-1, Template:User pms-2, Template:User pms-3:

Created by User:Afullo, I'm not sure what these say, but I guess the bigger question is, do we really need or want them? --Alan del Beccio 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only know "PMS" in a completely different context. ;) Anyway, as always, I vote delete on any Babel language template for which no MA edition exists. -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about deleting the pms-n templates, but I do think that having some templates available for languages that we currently do not have corresponding MA editions could be useful in gauging potential interest and/or support for a future edition (especially for more widely-used languages, such as Italian). Someone interested in starting a new edition would have a base of potential contributors to draw from. We should be selective about new language templates, though. -- Renegade54 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hehe, I looked this up and meant to comment the other day. Turns out it's a language spoken in Northern Italy. - AJ Halliwell 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia list of the "most-contributed-in" languages == it might be a good idea to make a ruling on how many of these we're willing to create. like decide to use "non-minor" languages only, based on how many people use that language on WP? -- Captain M.K.B. 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Deleted. - AJ Halliwell 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 %E6%88%B0%E9%AC%A5%E5%B7%A1%E8%88%AA (????) & 星行:企业Edit

Not sure if this was a test page or not, but it was simply a redirect to Star Trek: First Contact that also contained a second link ([[en:Star Trek: First Contact]]) to the film as well. --Alan del Beccio 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Eh? - AJ Halliwell 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unneeded on an English wiki. --From Andoria with Love 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wierd... how did they know my mother's name is 戰鬥巡航? Oh well, delete i guesss. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice to see things are still normal here at MA after my absence. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, speedy delete? complete patent nonsense? "%E6%88%B0%E9%AC%A5%E5%B7%A1%E8%88%AA" doesn't seem to be unicode for anything. if it is real unicode, it's hopelessly broken/misformatted-- 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is proper unicode. And un-registered users don't get a vote. Either way, delete both. -- Sulfur 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike out other people's comments, it's extraordinarily rude-- 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not start arguments on the deletion page. Sulfur is, indeed, correct. Anonymous users may not vote in the VfD. If you wish to vote, please sign up for Memory Alpha. Thank you. - Enzo Aquarius 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's no reason to strike out someone elses comment, unless you are so offended by broken unicode that the only way you can look at is with a line through the middle-- 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted both. The second qualified as a speedy delete since I think it's pretty much agreed foreign language redirects are not needed. --From Andoria with Love 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Plymouth Road Runner Edit

A vague article to begin with, I just watched Carpenter Street specifically to grab a screencap of this car for the article, however I saw no such vehicle (=Road Runner). In fact, according to the original version of this article (from history) written by an IP user:

"this is a type of car called a station wagon it has 4 doors and a cargo bay at the back carpenter street ENT"

...which quite clearly indicates that this individual was speaking of a station wagon, which is what Loomis drove, and which was not a Road Runner. --Alan del Beccio 01:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, do we know it was never used? Could it have been one of the cars Archer tried to break into with his scanner? (Either way, this content should go.) - AJ Halliwell 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    "I just watched Carpenter Street specifically to grab a screencap of this car for the article, however I saw no such vehicle. --Alan del Beccio 01:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)" --Alan del Beccio 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What kind of station wagon? I haven't seen the episode. Why should the Road Runner go IF it was indeed part of the episode? --Sasoriza 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Wow-- okay, again: "I just watched Carpenter Street specifically to grab a screencap of the PLYMOUTH ROAD RUNNER for the article, however I saw no such vehicle -- therefore this article is irrelevant, as the Road Runner is not part of the Star Trek universe. As for what type of station wagon, I can't seem to ID it at the moment, however I do know what it is not-- a Road Runner. --Alan del Beccio 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, Alan, I understood that; I was addressing AJ, who said "Either way, this content should go". In other words, I was wondering why an automobile (or anything for that matter) should be excluded if it's part of an episode. --Sasoriza 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about cars, but I'll take Alan's word for it in this case. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno, maybe we should have someone check and Carpenter Street for caps just in case, it might be somewhere in that episode. (Jk. I must've misread yer first post - thought you meant you specifically capped the station wagon, and it wasn't it, not that you check'd'm all.) - AJ Halliwell 23:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • UPDATE -- just an FYI: Loomis's car, was a 1968 Chevrolet Caprice station wagon. --Alan del Beccio 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete -- the Plymouth Road Runner car was not seen in the episode, it should be deleted. BTW, this is because the Plymouth Road Runner car was not seen in the episode :) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dodge V8 pickup Edit

Same as above. First off, you can't tell a V8 truck from anything other truck unless you get a good look at the engine, which in this case, was not seen. Secondly, like above, the vehicle shown looks like no Dodge pickup I've ever seen. The one looks like a modified military vehicle (a la the Phoenix rocket) and the other looks like a kitbash. Either way, this name is wrong, and these two vehicles are listed at truck, for a lack of better name/home. --Alan del Beccio 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

4 August 2006Edit

Diego Barquinero Edit

This has to be confirmed or it has to go. Either way it has been lingering around here for much too long. (see : talk:Diego Barquinero) The whole thing seems to be to be some elaborate joke considering the contributions of three of the talk pages participants (User:Zdrack, User:Perlita, User:NoloSabe) are limited to pretty much this page and seem rather questionable at best. --Alan del Beccio 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I reckon it was an elaborate joke (though, not incredibly elaborate...) I done do believe that I wish I could save the talk page somewhere though, cause it done does make me laugh every time I read it, I reckon. - AJ Halliwell 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. His resumay at his offishal site don't even mention Star Trek, so ah's reckon this is inakurit infomashun. Git rid of it quick, fast, an' in a hurree. :P --From Andoria with Love 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

2 August 2006Edit

Rettick Edit

Unused redirect, though apparently uses it. Keep as redirect, or delete? Delete. - AJ Halliwell 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess it is used on, not our article In that case, the possible deletion of that article shouldn't play any role in this decision. Since redirects help finding an article, and that misspelling is apparently used on the official homepage, I don't see any problem with keeping this one. -- Cid Highwind 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted, as a 2/3 majority voted for its deletion. Sorry, Cid. --From Andoria with Love 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agosoria redirect Edit

Agosoria Nebula
Unused redirect to Great Plume of Agosoria, the phenomenon was never referred to as "Agosoria Nebula" in the episode ("Cold Front"), so I really don't think this redirect is needed. --From Andoria with Love 11:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Regional Command Edit

Luftwaffe Regional Command
The topic may be valid, but the content of that article right now reads like incoherent nonsense. Even if it is correct, where's the Trek relevance? Unless this article is rewritten, I vote to delete for the moment. Note: I removed a {{pna}} when placing the deletion tag. Should this article for some reason survive as is, please re-insert that tag. -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless referenced or seen in writing in one of the Star Trek: Nazi episdoes. - AJ Halliwell 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. However, I just realized that the LRC were mentioned in "Storm Front, Part II", so the link can remain on that page for those who wish to re-create it with information from that episode. --From Andoria with Love 04:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gloria Rand and Leslie Shatner Edit

Leslie Shatner was an immediate delete; page previously deleted. --Alan del Beccio 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant how? --Alan del Beccio 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. No real relevance to ST other than being involved with Wild Bill in some way (wife and daughter). delete both. -- Sulfur 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete both, maybe merge relevant information with the William Shatner article. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Starship sections Edit

Starship sections
This article has survived a Vfd about a year ago, where the outcome was: "existing content is non-canon, but article can be rewritten" (see talk page). Problem is, it wasn't rewritten, and is still non-canon. So I'm bringing this up again - this time, it should be rewritten before the deletion notice is removed, otherwise delete. -- Cid Highwind 09:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete--Alan del Beccio 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this article should be made again in the future with real information one day, but in this form:delete. - AJ Halliwell 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted, but as AJ pointed out, it could still be recreated so I've left those pages that currently link to it should continue to do so. --From Andoria with Love 04:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Edit

Website advertisement. --Bp 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, although I think that it is going to far to call this an intentional "website advertisement", that is almost like calling it spam. This is a Star Trek related site, and was probably added in good faith. I guess I am trying to say something along the lines of what Cid has been saying about people jumping and calling someone a vandal, this doesn't look like intentional spam or an advertisement to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I also believe that this was done in good faith. However, it still is a page about a "fan-fiction"-like website, something we don't normally keep. Delete. -- Cid Highwind 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not immediate as per precedent (Ex Astris was deleted looooong time ago I believe.) - AJ Halliwell 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • add this link to the website directory if you feel its valid... -- Captain M.K.B. 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Devana 1V Edit

First of all, '1v'? Secondly, it's a Doctor Who thing according to the text. -- Sulfur 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Swainsons disease Edit

Swainsons disease 
Aside from the mis-spelling, this disease has never been mentioned in Trek as best as I can tell. --From Andoria with Love 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aerobus Edit

Another from the same user who created the two articles above. This should be deleted for the same reasons. --From Andoria with Love 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and someone should explain our canon policy to this user. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

28 July 2006Edit


It's an unused redirect to Template:pna-cite. Do we really need it? I've noticed a plethora of these new templates or redirects that do the same thing as existing pna templates popping up of late. Why? -- Sulfur 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I found one Wikia that uses this template title as well as some of the other recent creations with a similar or same wording/categorization. Probably, users of that Wikia are trying to put the same nomenclature to use here. This isn't especially harmful, but it isn't necessary either. Since keeping this redirect could lead to some confusion later on, I vote to delete this. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 07:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Girl Edit

Last I checked, unnamed characters don't get their own articles. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Been (being) moved into Unnamed Humans (23rd century) by Shran. -- Sulfur 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Having already moved it, I'm wondering – since it's unlikely she was specifically referred to as Human, should we move her to Unnamed humanoids (23rd century)? No merging would be necessary, just a copy & paste job. --From Andoria with Love

Template:User infobox Edit

This template was apparently copied from some other wiki. It's completely broken here (uses other templates that don't exist here), even on the one user page that currently uses it, and probably unnecessary. Delete this and the redirect Template:User Infobox. -- Cid Highwind 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Safety protocols Edit

Orphaned. Contents of the article are already covered, and in better detail, in Holodeck. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article history was merged with Holodeck safety protocol. --From Andoria with Love 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Loskene, Conquerer Of Worlds Edit

We already have an article on Loskene, and this new one is non-canon (made by an anon with a Tholian fetish). --OuroborosCobra talk 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Although I feel this qualifies as a Speedy Delete candidate. - Enzo Aquarius 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I looked at the list of rules for immediate deletion, and I did not see simply being non-canon on the list. That is why I changed it from speedy (the original mark I put), to Vfd. Perhaps a policy change is in order to make it so that this type of thing goes up for speedy? --OuroborosCobra talk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for same reasons already stated. Mdh 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if accurate, info should be put in "Apocrypha" on Loskene's page. It seems to come from "Vendetta." - AJ Halliwell 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Cardassia wasn't mentioned at all in Vendetta. pure fanfic. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tholian ruby class Edit

Most likely created by the same user as with the above Tholian-related article, contains uncanon information. - Enzo Aquarius 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, after any useful information can be merged into "Star Trek: Shattered Universe" and "Deny Thy Father," where I believe the information comes from. - AJ Halliwell 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about the apocrypha, this seems to be mixing bits of stuff from a simulation Riker did at the academy (TNG: "Peak Performance"), and stuff about Riker's father (TNG: "The Icarus Factor"), and a lot of fanfic. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would like to note that I think this now may count as vandalism. Tholian Commander today vandalized the user pages of Shran, Captain Mike, and myself by adding deletion notices, as well as some other actions. I am honored to have been included in what I consider his "vandalism". --OuroborosCobra talk 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 02:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

19 July 2006 Edit

Klingon Vessel Edit

D-4 Battle Cruiser

Allow me to quote the first sentence, "A hypothetical Klingon vessel..." Need I say more? - AJ Halliwell 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

18 July 2006 Edit

Soch Edit

Translation of this Klingon word. Should be (at best) merged into Klingon language. At worst, just removal. -- Sulfur 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Merged and deleted. (Just realized I did this one day earlier than I should have, but we'll live.) --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Micro-quantum torpedo Edit

I am 99% sure this is never mentioned in canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe this is only from the DS9 Tech Manual, never seen/heard on screen. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, they also show up in a couple of the video games and books. -- Sulfur 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Feature length and Finale Edit

Dictionary definition. My bet is that finale will be added next. -- Sulfur 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And it was added next. So, adding that to the VfD. -- Sulfur 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, and someone needs to tell Ibentmywookie to stop putting upthese dictionary definitions. *sigh* I'll do it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

16 July 2006 Edit

Template:APOV Edit

I suspect this is some sort of vandalism, or at least, another complication added to this site that really seems unnecessary considering the intent of MA is to accurately present information as it is presented in the series. Whether or not we have succeeded at it in some of the articles in question is a completely different bag. --Alan del Beccio 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'll also say again, there is no such word as "alternatility", so exactly what the hell is being disputed. --From Andoria with Love 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have absolutely no idea what an "alternatality dispute" might be. Also delete the category used. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:NPOV Edit

Similar to the above template, this one is a (currently orphaned) message about an existing "neutrality dispute" - another thing we didn't yet have here, and probably don't need. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Unlike APOV, this one actually makes some sense. I can see the possibility of needing this, although perhaps changed to be "PNA-NPOV". I'm not sure if it is really needed, PNA on its own might work, as long as comments are left in the talk page to explain a reason (one of my biggest problems with the PNAs is that people put them up without doing this, so no one knows what is needed to fix or takedown the PNA). --OuroborosCobra talk 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. PNA's worked just fine so far. - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total waste of time and energy. Even to type this out is a waste. :) -- Sulfur 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed Vulcans (25th century) Edit

All of its contents are already in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). In addition, the only Vulcans here are members of Starfleet, and therefore belong in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). As an example, there are no starfleet officers listed in Unnamed Vulcans (24th century). --OuroborosCobra talk 11:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:If Edit

Since the parser functions are now working properly, Template:If is no longer needed. All occurrences have been replaced by #if. -- Renegade54 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if ya know what yer doin. I've personally never heard of any of this. Also, the talk page seems to indicate this has been voted for deletion before... - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. During the last deletion discussion where I opposed the deletion, "parser functions" (which basically are the successor of this and similar templates) were not working correctly. This problem has now been solved, so this template is no longer necessary. -- Cid Highwind 11:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford Edit

Never mentioned in Star Trek. The reason it is put up is in the articles talk page,and while interesting, still provides no evidence of a Star Trek reference. The citations in the article are invalid. They are citations as to when the Space Shuttle Enterprise was shown in Star Trek. While Gerald Ford may have signed the order to build the Enterprise in our world, this is never mentioned in canon in Star Trek, and not in those citations. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Well he is mentioned in the Star Trek tributes and Enterprise (OV-101) pages as having named the space shuttle Enterprise, the latter half in the background section. Perhaps the second paragraph of this article should be put in a background section in a similar fashion that some info about other US Presidents such as Ronald Reagan have background sections which discuss the real life background a President has to Star Trek even if he isnt officially mentioned or even shown as some presidents are in Storm Front: Part II. So because of the Storm Front scene there is already a precedent set for Presidents not listed by name having a page, otherwise the most recent US president listed by name in cannon Star Trek is Nixon.

--Chicago103 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The precedent set by Storm Front is that presidents not named, but seen, can have articles. Ford is not seen or named. Also, Star Trek tributes is not a canon source, neither is background of another article. Countless things are mentioned in background without getting their own articles, such as things that starships are named after. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well is there a place where there is a complete list of Storm Front timestream images? The ones shown on here are incomplete, its possible Ford was shown but noone here has caught it yet.--Chicago103 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of one, and until proof of his existence in Star Trek is found, the article has to go, IMO. Remember, it can be undeleted later, if a Star Trek reference is found. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless an actual screencap of him can be found in the montage. (After looking through it a couple times, I don't see him anywhere...) - AJ Halliwell 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, same condition as above. -- Renegade54 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, he was mentioned on the Star Trek tributes and Enterprise (OV-101) pages... but the first is a production POV article, while his mentioned in the second article is in the background info. There was a good reason why he wasn't linked in either article – because he has never been seen or referenced in Star Trek. --From Andoria with Love 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -Alan del Beccio 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and change to real world perspective, still notable in the sense that the shuttle was named after the TV show, so re-write as a production sided article, rather than as a character-- 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I should probably note that IP users cannot vote... - AJ Halliwell 04:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Still delete. President Ford was not part of any production. This belongs as a background note on the Space Shuttle Enterprise article, not as its own. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek versus Star Wars Edit

I don't think this really goes along with the type of article we put up at MA. I was tempted to put this up for immediate deletion, as it seems to me to be similar to an article deleted on 30 December 2004 (from the archive), but I cannot say that without a doubt. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, this is a direct copy from Wookieepedia, and since we don't seem to like copies from Wikipedia, why would we like one from Wookieepedia? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The following was moved from Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements:

Star Trek versus Star Wars 
Copied from Wookieepedia, unnecessary on MA. --From Andoria with Love 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I see now that it should be deleted, I must note that it isn't a copyvio, as Wookieepedia content is licensed under the GFDL. -- Adamwankenobi 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete -- Sulfur 03:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although it should probably be mentioned as a footnote in one of the Real-World pov pages, like Parodies or dedications or somethign... - AJ Halliwell 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE ASAP The LAST thing we need is something luring the "Warsies" over here...they'd promptly run amok and trash the place...just as Darkstar about their ways (he's delt with them before)... :)Capt Christopher Donovan 07:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; also since this is a copyvio as well, the content should be removed. --Alan del Beccio17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Capt Christopher Donovan. Adamwankenobi 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

12 July 2006 Edit

Moved from: "Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars" Edit

Do we really need this, especially if it is just going to be a copy from Wookieepedia? --OuroborosCobra talk 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think so. Although a silly debate in nature, it's a major issue in Star Trek/Star Wars culture. Adamwankenobi 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a pointless debate, Star Wars and Star Trek are two different. Star Trek relies more on scientific theories while Star Wars has a focus on imaginative uses of technology based on older science fiction serials... if you want to debate anything, it's Captain Proton versus Star Wars. Majorthomme 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, this is an encyclopedia of things from within Star Trek. Star Wars just isn't. We don't put fandom here either, even though it is a major part of the Star Trek culture. I think, personally, it needs more to justify itself than just being a big part of the culture. Remember, Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha operate very differently. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • But the page isn't about the debate itself. It's about the phenomenon within Star Trek culture. And I think that makes it noteworthy. This exact same discussion was held over at Wookieepedia and Wikipedia. Adamwankenobi 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Hold on a sec. You're telling me that Memory Alpha doesn't write about real-world things like Star Trek culture? Adamwankenobi 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
            • On the whole, no, it does not. Memory Alpha on the whole writes about canon information. The only realworld stuff tends to be about thing like actors and production crew directly related to canon. That's why fandom isn't up, and why pointed ear fetishes aren't up here. Also, this article strikes me as similar to one that was deleted in December of 2004 (according to the archives) --OuroborosCobra talk 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
              • (is embarrased) Oh... I'm such a n00b. Adamwankenobi 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The most recent version of some type of "ST/SW" article was turned into an article about various sci-fi shows. Perhaps it could have a "background note" -- this article's "real-world" rivalry/comparison portion - summarized into a handful of sentences for placement in the Star Wars section of that article. We could then merge this edit history there. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (should any of it be "non-copyvio" urm, that is...) -- Captain M.K.B. 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

11 July 2006 Edit

Fermion Edit

  • Delete -- uncited. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can find a reference for it. I haven't been able to find one myself. --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though if someone wants to check TNG: "The Next Phase" it might be worth a look. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Verdens Gang Edit

Uncited and orphaned. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no cite, orphaned, and as far as I can tell it does not exist in Star Trek. Also, the creator's IP address indicates that he is located in Norway himself. Coincidence? ;-) --OuroborosCobra 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone Edit

This article title is misspelled, the fish was Livingston. Also, there is already an article on Picard's fish, located at Livingston. The article is also now orphaned --OuroborosCobra 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • wouldn't it be easier to just turn it into a redirect rather than listing it here?--IP User: - 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Nothing links to it, and it is a misspelling to begin with. I don't see the need to create a redirect for something that is orphaned and misspelled. I still say delete. --OuroborosCobra 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why can't this just be speedy deleted?--IP User: 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It can be, at the time that I nominated it, I did not know how to do that. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, in case it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (though it probably does.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IKS Vor'cha Edit

This should have been deleted along with IKS K't'inga and IRW D'deridex and I am quite frankly surprised to still see it here. As the page clearly states:

"Although the Vor'cha itself was never seen or mentioned, we can infer that it existed based on Klingon Empire's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype."

There is no evidence to support this. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --From Andoria with Love 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like there was already a debate on this that I missed, but the only evidence of naming like this I know of is for Federation ships, not Klingon (with the sole exception of the IKS Negh'Var of course). --OuroborosCobra talk 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As I stated, there is no evidence that the Klingons do this-- the Negh'Var was never called a prototype, it was simply the new flagship-- hence Negh'var warship vs. Negh'Var class. The Enterprise-D was the new flagship at one time and it was never a prototype of its class. --Alan del Beccio 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Like I said, I missed that whole debate. Thanks for setting me straight. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mafeu 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Klingon language - babel category/templates Edit

Category:User tlh, Template:User tlh-0, Template:User tlh-1, Template:User tlh-2, Template:User tlh-3, Template:User tlh-4

  • I may be wrong, but I don't recall a discussion on the creation of this category. --Alan del Beccio 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think this has already been deleted before, possibly making this a candidate for immediate deletion. In any case, delete. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 'em all. --From Andoria with Love 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mafeu 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop the Klingophobic deletions. What if someone really does speak Klingon?
    • If someone wants to start a Klingon category, they can do so at category suggestions. There is no anti-Klingon racism on this board, so don't make it ethnic! (Actually, I've never trusted Klingons.. and I never will. I can never forgive them.. for the death of my boy). -- Captain M.K.B. 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Restoration of this page was suggested, with the reasoning and discussion at:
Memory Alpha:Restoration discussions/Klingon language stuff for MA:BABEL

Katarus Edit

As the article so blatantly points out, it's "APOCRYPHAL". Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also, might want to tell the anon who created it to not remove the mark for deletion. I've restored it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, from Serpant Slayer, the anon who posted this article. Shran, you and all Andorians are now my mortal enemies for all eternity. I shan't rest until the oceans of Andoria are red with your with your blood, or...bluer.
  • Delete definitely in it's current form. Was this a redirect before? If not/so, was it spelled this way in one of it's mentionings? But yeah, this article is just a longwinded nitpicking. (Normal "K'tarian/Katarian" nitpicking is a couple paragraphs shorter than this.) Hm, reading it again, I do believe we're being insulted in that third paragraph... - AJ Halliwell 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not insulting you AJ, I'm merely stating facts. - Serpant Slayer
  • Since it's also an incorrectly spelled, non-canon version of Ktaris, that just makes it all the more imperitive to delete it. Personally, I think it qualifies for an immediate delete. --From Andoria with Love 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since you all seem bent on destroying my page I propose a compromise. You already have a stub called Ktaris. I shall add my theory to that page. Even though it's never stated on star trek that there are two species called Ktarians, it's never stated that there's not. You only mention that some fans believe that there are two species called Ktarians, and in my opinion this needs to be elaborated upon. And I didn't spell Katarus. It was a link on the page Child's Play that didn't exist, and I merely fulfilled the pages request by entering my theory.- Serpant Slayer
  • Before doing that, I would suggest adding your theory to the article's talk page, stating your wish that it be added to the article. We here at Memory Alpha tend not to involve too much fan speculation and theories in our articles. Not that I haven't stretched the limits of that rule from time to time (I try not to, though), but just to let you know that if any part of an article, even background info, is heavy on fan speculation then it will likely be removed. So, yeah, I'd add what you intend to say to the talk page first and see what other's say. --From Andoria with Love 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mafeu 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hazard ops Edit

I do believe that this is a non-canon term from the computer game Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force. Thus, delete. Note that if the article is deleted, the link from the Starfleet page will also need to be removed. - Intricated 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Yes it is from Elite Force, also it doesnt merit an article for a non-canon thing. Mafeu 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And no note about it in the comic, cause it isn't mentioned in the comic, just the game. :) - AJ Halliwell 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This term does not appear at all during the Voyager television series --Dr. Floyd 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

5 July 2006 Edit

William McKinley Edit

Even though several things are named after him, he was not referenced directly and does not need an article, simply a note on those pages. -- Jaz talk 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm going to have to carefully go thru the timeline resetting itself in Storm Front: Part II :) I'd agree he should be deleted if crewman McKinley getting red shirted was the only reference. Especially since there isn't enough character info to make that conclusion. The other references though appear to be coming up just often enough in the various series to conclude they are named for him. I'll defer on adding him to the USA Presidents template for now. User Talk:Skywayman 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Goes along the same lines as Trieste. --From Andoria with Love 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absent anyone coming up with a direct Trek reference to the man. Aholland 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reaons stated above --OuroborosCobra 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Inspirations for plot Edit

Orphaned and not really needed. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Renegade54 00:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I was going to mark this for deletion when I spotted it, but Shran beat me to it. :) -- Sulfur 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete --OuroborosCobra 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep (in some form) This needs to be reworked and likely moved to a better heading, but I think the idea has merit. Heck, we have Shakespeare and Star Trek which is essentially a subsection of this idea. Jaf 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf
Delete as it currently exists. Inspirations can range from prior works to what someone's dog dragged home - and often is not known in any definitive way. If there is something specific on a story it can be added to that story's article. Aholland 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NX-Gamma Edit

Not mentioned on Enterprise, its existence is merely speculation. --From Andoria with Love 02:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

20 June 2006Edit

Takashi Kimura Edit

As the article says, it's non-canon. This information never made it to air in the final episode. At most, it should be redirected either to Hoshi's page or to "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". --From Andoria with Love 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and turn into background info note on Hoshi's page. Logan 5 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I added the information to Hoshi Sato's background section, noting that the entire bio wasn't actually seen on screen. -- Sulfur 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are we still keeping this as a redirect, or do we get rid of it? (I was gonna delete it tomorrow, thought I'd get some input first, though.) --From Andoria with Love 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambassador Thev Edit

He seems to be a non-canon character from the novel "The Eyes of the Beholders". He's noted as "1 of the 18 killed by the Borg" from the TNG episode "I Borg", but I don't recall any mention of civilian casualties in that particular episode. -- Sulfur 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

15 June 2006 Edit

Trieste Edit

A starship may have been named after it, but other than that, this city has not been referenced in canon Trek. --From Andoria with Love 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- (spends a good five minutes trying to think of something witty to say, but gets nothing :-( ) - AJ Halliwell 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Jaz talk 06:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to non-canon Wiki Computerjoe 09:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Aholland 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

dictionary term(s) Edit

Endgame (term) Edit

Although I have found several of these (and I may yet add more) Memory Alpha is not a dictionary. --Alan del Beccio 01:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Jaz talk 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Where have you been, Alan? We've decided long ago that the "not a dictionary" rule was obsolete and we could have articles on every single word ever spoken on Trek. HA! Just kidding, delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Although with articles like "sugar" one has to wonder. Delete Aholland 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I remember an argument about Pretzels like this; I think if people remember the point of the article is to list all of the trek appearances it's perfectly fine (food-wise that is). - AJ Halliwell 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • People, places, and things are fine. Intangible things like words are not. --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AJHalliwell. Computerjoe 09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


If Memory Alpha isn't a dictionary, it certainly isn't an internet shorthand guide. This article is also an uncited stub. -- Jaz talk 02:17, 8 June 2006

25 May 2006Edit

Levinius system and Bilaren Prime Edit

These pages are misspellings of Livinius and Belarn Prime. The scene mentioning those two planets is from the "Fight or Flight" cut scenes on the ENT Season 1 DVDs.

The spelling (Livinius and Belarn Prime) comes from the subtitles of that cut scene. It might be possible, however, that the subtitles are wrong (happens quite often with the DVD subtitles) and Mayweather actually said "Levinius" (a reference to Levinius V) and "Bilaren Prime" (a reference to the Bilaren system). We'd need a script of the episode to verify that, until we can get hold of it, we have to trust the subtitles, I guess. --Jörg 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • About the Levinius system and something general I wanted to ask anyway: Only Levinius V is mentioned in the episode, not the system. Of course, every planet has to be in a star system (except if it is a rogue planet) put Levinius system was not mentioned. Do we create entries for every possible star system or only if it was also mentioned in the episode?--Jörg 10:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • in the past, many such entries were created, but without the assumption that the star of the system is named the same (for example: the Bajoran system has an unnamed star, but the planets are numbered (Bajor VIII). I guess the system article might only be useful if there was more than one reference -- for example, you'd have to go to the Bajoran system article to find a list of planets there. With Levinius, we now have one canon reference (Levinius V) and one "background info" reference that should be linked (the similarity with Livinius). I think the "system" article should remain to alleviate confusion. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Livinius and Belarn Prime are only mentioned in scenes cut from the final episode AND their spelling is only known from the notoriously incorrect subtitles, then by all means move information contained on these pages to background sections of pages with a "correct" spelling. These two could then be kept as redirects... -- Cid Highwind 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, it's time to do something about these two. I see quite a few suggestions (delete both, keep one and lose the other, keep as redirects, move info, add info to background section). I'm assuming, since both are non-canon anyway (they're not seen/referenced in the episode), that we delete these as well as those with the "correct" spelling and add the info as background to "Fight or Flight"? --From Andoria with Love 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yoo-hooooooooooo.... --From Andoria with Love 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thought Edit

A page that is nearly a stub, has been tagged as "needing attention" since 09-2005 or earlier, and is not even about "Thought" but partly about electromagnetism. Only one (episode) article links to this page. Eventually the content of this page should be merged to somewhere else, otherwise simply deleted. -- Cid Highwind 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a muddled mess, isn't it? Delete unless someone volunteers to turn it into an article from the ground up. Aholland 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --From Andoria with Love 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure about this one, while a stub it has a point, and it is cited. The cited episode talks about how important thought can be, it needs more work but this is a wika, you can change it. --TOSrules 07:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Being cited" is a good first step, but not necessarily all an article needs to be kept. The main problem with this one is - it is not about "thought", and (after reading it again), the parts that are not about the topic aren't even worth being moved to somewhere else, because they are speculation and unrelated theories (which means that it even is a partly incorrect citation). An article about "thought" (as related to Trek) would most probably not be more than a definition, but "we are not a dictionary". -- Cid Highwind 07:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have many articles that are definitions, This article is more relevant then those def articles. Thought was the major theme of "Where No One Has Gone Before", this article scratches the surface of that. I would like someone to expand on that. Just watching the three traveler episodes and adding that would make this an acceptable article. Then all is needed is adding other trek refs around that. --TOSrules 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to work on it - however, in its current form, the article should be deleted, and I don't think we should start to keep articles just because they might become good articles after a total conversion (which everyone talks about and no one does). If we delete this text (that isn't even about "thought" at the moment), it doesn't mean that a different, valid article about the topic can never be created again. -- Cid Highwind 09:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This was deleted by Shran at 12:36, 23 May 2006 -- Sulfur 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Shall we next delete J.D. Cullum Like Thought it has merit, and it is as well developed too. --TOSrules 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
J.D. Cullum's article at least has a nice link to the guy's imdb entry and a picture of him. The thought article was rather random (all things considered). Nobody stepped up in the 5 days to even attempt a rewrite of it. There is still validity to having an article on 'thought', just not in the form that it existed previously. -- Sulfur 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought in it's current form is a Stub, the point of having stubs is so that people will work on it. The now deleted stub even gave people a direction to take the article. --TOSrules 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a number performer or production staff articles on MA such as that of J.D. Cullum. In some cases, there isn't much more information available than what's already been posted in the article. In many other cases, the article serves as a listing of that person's Trek credits and a link to IMDb, Wikipedia, or another site with relevant info. In every case, though, it's an article about a person who participated in some way in one or more Trek productions. That's not even close to being the same as a definition, and certainly isn't something you'd find in a dictionary, but would find in an encyclopedia. You're comparing apples and oranges, TOSrules. -- Renegade54 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, J.D. Cullum's not a stub article. What are you talking about, TOS? ;) Anyways, the vote was tallied as three for delete and zero for keep. You may have been against it's deletion, but you neglected to actually vote. I, too, agree that the article that it was a jumbled mess (hence my vote for delete), and since no one worked on it since it was brough up for deletion... poof!. In any case, feel free to re-create it with some useful, coherent information. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
At the time of TOSRules' comments, JD Cullum was a stub. It was heavily expanded last night. Check its history.  :) -- Sulfur 17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I know it was a stub. I was the one who expanded it. That was the point of the joke. Of course, you probably knew that and were just going with the joke, but... yeah. For those who didn't get that, I didn't want 'em to think I was an idiot... again. ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

List of incidents in which Sisko loses control of his command Edit

I honestly don't think this article is needed. We've had five series with five different captains, and there's really no reason Sisko should get special treatment. Even if it were to be rewritten & renamed to include all the captains, I still think it would be unnecessary as details of these incidents can be found on various other pages. If anything, it should be reformatted as a true list of episodes in which captains lose control of their ship. However, as it is now, it should be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep!! It's interesting. I think. But I created it so I could be bias. --Bp 04:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists are best when objective information is involved. Does a loss of command mean a formal reassignment? A practical inability to physically control the entire station or ship? A part of the station or ship? What about illusory loss? What if an individual disobeys his order? What if he feels frustrated at not getting his way, but hasn't actually been disobeyed? It is so subjective as to be of virtually no value and simply invites endless debate for no purpose. With apologies to Bp, Delete. Aholland 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
All good points. Alright, I take my vote back. --Bp 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But, I would say "A practical inability to physically control the entire station or ship" would have been the definition. The station or ship is lost as an asset to Starfleet because the commander has no control over it. --Bp 05:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above, it is ill-defined somehow, and if such list is supposed to exist, it should exist for all people "in command". I also doubt that having this article is necessary (or even "encyclopedic"). Its content might better be placed on either the Sisko or the DS9 article. Delete/Move info if considered necessary. -- Cid Highwind 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - It sort of smacks of nit-picking. -- Tough Little Ship 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Zandura Edit

I believe this is non-canon. It's also not in the encyclopedia. Jaz talk 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This was deleted by Shran at 12:33, 23 May 2006 -- Sulfur 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fillandia Edit

Someone else added the template but did not list it here. Non-canon. Jaz talk 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If non-canon, delete -- Sulfur 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If these aliens did in fact appear in the film, then we need to add the information to another suitable page before deleting this. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The text of the article is virtually verbatim from here, and so potentially violates copyright. But it also comes exclusively from FASA - the only canon aspect of the article is that some aliens were seen: name unknown. Add them to an unknown species page, but Delete this entry. Aholland 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Roger that. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

22 May 2006Edit

Handheld body scanner Edit

Orphaned, sub-stub, unformatted, wrong POV. I don't know how this survived for more than two months, but it shouldn't survive much longer... -- Cid Highwind 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna try with this one. Delete. Aholland 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh but you should try. And until then... toast the bastard... er... delete! -- Sulfur 02:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
delete. Strange one. --Bp 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --From Andoria with Love 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Jörg 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Jaz talk 19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You of course realize it's been less than 5 days... unless an article has been deemed non-canon, it should be up here for discussion for five days, as per policy. Oh, well... I don't think anyone'll miss it. :P --From Andoria with Love 20:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghostmoth & Portsmouth Edit

Non-canon/fanon stuff from the same guy who created the late Manchester (birthplace of Russell Watson) page. --From Andoria with Love 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • nothing seems to link to either anyhow, and what is a ghostmoth from? delete. -- Sulfur 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, "ghostmoth" is some guy on MySpace. A "ghost moth", on the other hand, is a species of moth common in Europe. --From Andoria with Love 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no Trek content as far as I can tell. Aholland 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Jörg 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fenlon Class starship and Fenlon class starship Edit

As best I can tell, these are both non-canon, and the entire text for the second was a cut and paste from what appears to be a fan site for one of the Star Trek RPGs. -- Sulfur 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a FASA creation. See Federation Ship Recognition Manual, where it is listed. The text in the latter article is almost verbatim from here. Delete both. Aholland 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Sulfur/Aholland. --From Andoria with Love 16:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Jaz talk 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 20:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

17 May 2006Edit

USS Titan dedication plague Edit

Non-canon. Jaz talk 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, but I would suggest that we move the comments to the background section of the books that it is relevant for. -- Sulfur 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
But I read the books and there was nothing about a plague... how many people do you think got sick at the dedication? (delete) -- Captain M.K.B. 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, pretend that it's a "plaque" and that the creator put in a typo without realizing it. :) -- Sulfur 22:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It should still be deleted. Jaz talk 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with that, see above. I jusay that we should move the note to the novel's page. -- Sulfur 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete; non-canon. Not even close. Aholland 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sulfur is more right, actually, and I appreciate his paying attention to the viewpoint that we should try to preserve data. Which book was the dedication quote for the Titan decided on. This information belongs in the "==References==" part of that novel's article (vote: merge). -- Captain M.K.B. 00:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Since I wasn't sure which novel it came from (never having read any of them), I've put it onto the main page for the series: Star Trek: Titan. If that addition in the references at the very bottom of the page covers it well enough, then the merge is done and we can delete happily. -- Sulfur 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually "merging" refers to a process performed by an administrator where one article is deleted, the second article is moved to its place, then all revisions are restored. in this way, all edits performed continue to be contained in the article history. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I merged the relevant text (and there was only one editor besides the deletion notice). Sorry, I should've been more clear as to what was done. -- Sulfur 10:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and be quick about it. --From Andoria with Love 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Garuda Edit

This ship and the accompanying article information is not in the final episode but comes exclusively from the script of DS9: "Shakaar". So the ship's name, class, personnel, and activity were neither shown nor discussed in the episode in any way. As far as the episode is concerned, the ship never existed. It is at best a series of filmed but deleted scenes (not just one), and possibly on-set script revisions that were never even filmed. Either way, the article is non-canon that should only be included in the background of the episode's article. Aholland 11:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No vote just now, but you know... this was created by one of MA's founders. ;) --From Andoria with Love 11:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even founders can . . . flounder from time to time. :) Aholland 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we still don't know if it's the founders' wishes that information from scripts and such not be used on MA as they've yet to comment on the issue. So, until such time as they object to it, I'd say we should follow the current canon policy and delete this – unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it. --From Andoria with Love 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a recent thread at ten forward where it was decided to use names from scripts as article titles. So what about Eric Burton, etc. ? --Bp 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Eric Burton, while unnamed, was seen. The script supplemented what was shown, not created things anew. The USS Garuda was not shown, was not in a list on an Okudagram, was not a model, was not a CGI, and was not referenced in dialogue. It didn't exist anywhere except in a version of the script that didn't make the cut. Eric was seen, though. To me that is a fundamental difference (as it is to the canon policy). Aholland 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. delete then. --Bp 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

13 May 2006Edit

Andrei SterlingEdit

I rewatched "Nightingale" and apart from the Annari Commander and Brell there are no other Annari in the episode. I went to Andrei Sterling's homepage and an appearance in VOY is not listed there. He is also not mentioned on or the VOY Companion. Could it be that this information was planted on incorrectly and just popped up here as well? --Jörg 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else reviewed the situation? --Jörg 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably a mistake, much like Bea Arthur. Delete. (We can always restore the article if it turns out to be true.) --From Andoria with Love 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree... Delete --Sloan47 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article is now 100% notices. --Bp 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, 1973, Star Trek birthdays, and Nightingale (episode) will all have to be edited if you decide he wasn't in the episode. --Bp 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jaz talk 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Ganhdi (and Talk:USS Ganhdi)Edit

I turned this into a redirect for the time being since it was a spelling mistake meaning to point to USS Gandhi. It came up on the talk page as to whether it was canon or not, which it obviously isn't... but the real USS Gandhi was, as in the one named after the famous fellow from India that had a movie named after him. :) -- Sulfur 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or keep as a redirect. The Encyclopedia has "Gandhi", and the script for TNG: "Second Chances" has it as "Gandhi" too. Aholland 02:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, delete. Sorry - in trying to salvage what anon had created, I didn't notice the typo. I'd delete it myself, but contrary to what some people think (not sure why), I am not - and have never been - an admin. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Sloan47 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Jaz talk 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NCC-63646 Edit

This ship does not appear to have any references in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, any appearances on screen where it could be seen, any extant photos of a pysical or CGI model, any references in scripts, or anything anywhere to support its existence at all, much less its existence as a canon ship. Most external sources attribute the ship to a mistaken read of a registry number that has simply persisted over time without basis. Aholland 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I read on Ex Astris Scientia it was mentioned in the Star Trek Fact Files -- keep -- Kobi 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to reverify and adjust your vote accordingly. this is the only mention of NCC-63646 on the entire Ex Astris Scientia site. It does not mention the Fact Files or any other source for NCC-63646. I had already checked it out there! :) See this for a fuller discussion of the error. Aholland 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but if we do remove it, we should move the note to the Thunderchild ship's page as a note that the registration has been mistaken for 63646 in the particular episode (etc). -- Sulfur 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and I agree with Sulfur's suggestion - F8street 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If there's absolutely no on-screen reference to this, I don't think we need a separate article about it. We might want to keep the title as a redirect to whatever page should contain the existing information (if any). Basically, I agree with the above suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 09:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. I probably should have merged the histories while I was at it, but oh well. --From Andoria with Love 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

July 15, 2067 and 2 0 6 7 Edit

The first doesn't seem to have anything to do with Star Trek, and secondly has totally buggered up information. I'm not entirely sure what the creator was smoking at the time to be honest. The second is a redirect to 2067, and seems a bit of a waste of time (to me at least). Nothing links to either of them. -- Sulfur 02:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Support; the articles have no place on MA. - Intricated 03:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Trek relevance. Aholland 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reasons above. --Bp 03:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahh, crap, I just deleted these things! Anyways, one had no meaningful content and the other was a confusing and useless redirect, therefore both qualified for immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 04:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

UTS Aeon Edit

Duplication of Aeon, without a canon source for the "UTS" part. Also, created as a duplicate in violation of standard article "move/rename" procedure on this site. No satisfactory explanation given on talk page except that the new prefix is correct, no explanation needed?.. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the page, and I agree that it should be deleted. It was a mistake. Please delete it ASAP!
Ensign q 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cptn Mike. Jaz talk 18:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • deleted after removeal was requested. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Barclay Edit

As best I can tell, it's not practice to put links in to characters by name+rank as above, and anyhow, nothing uses that redirect. -- Sulfur 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not keep it? It would only make searching easier. Jaz talk 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this one's an iffy. Redirects don't qualify as immediate deletions unless they're plain vandalism, is offensive, makes no sense, or if it causes confusion. I don't think these qualify in this case, but if anyone else feels otherwise, it should be brought up at Vfd, not here. --From Andoria with Love 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then again, if it's an unused redirect, it does qualify. Hmm.... --From Andoria with Love 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jaz: My worry at keeping this one is that it suggests that we should also have 'Captain Picard', 'Commander Riker', etc as links. last I checked, those didn't exist, and probably shouldn't exist. But that may just be my take on this one. -- Sulfur 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Andoria: yah, it was unused when I posted here. -- Sulfur 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Call it preference to gain attention for articles about ranks, but its more useful to have Lieutenant.. Worf than "Lieutenant Worf" since the two links double the possibilities for the reader moving to another article. If we had these as redirects, we'd have to devote effort to making sure they are orphaned..
  • .. (unless we used them for subsequent uses of the term -- example: Lieutenant.. Worf beamed down, followed by "Lieutenant La Forge" and "Lieutenant Yar"). -- Captain M.K.B. 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It almost seems worth making a decision on this... the only problem with things like Captain Picard and "Captain Janeway" is... which Janeway is that (assuming that there were two for example)? That would be my big worry. If you want a link like "Lieutenant Worf", do it like Lieutenant Worf. That would be the way I'd suggest doing things. Otherwise, we'll have more redirects to potentially worry about than we have articles. -- Sulfur 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Further followup, it's been another 3 days (or so), and still nothing links to it. It's a poor precedent to set having redirects of rank+name. If we're going to keep this Barclay one, then we should add one for every other named character. -- Sulfur 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeders of Vaal Edit

Well, I suggest either Delete this or Redirect to Vaalian. Subcommander Tal 20:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

merge then redirect, and fix up the several links that point to the 'feeders of vaal'. that would be my suggestion. -- Sulfur 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. I like your idea better. Subcommander Tal 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and made the relevant changes now. This issue can prolly be dropped now methinks. -- Sulfur 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3 May 2006Edit

Audiobook voice actors Edit

Theo Bleckmann, Daniel Gerroll, Dana Ivey, Simon Jones, J.J. Molloy, Meredith Monk, Lynne Thigpen, Lee Wilkof
These actors have performed voiceover roles for various non-canon audiobooks. If I remember correctly from a previous conversation, it was decided not to include those involved with non-canon items short of authors and artists of the novels. The performers listed above have no canon Trek works, so I think it best they be deleted and perhaps merge and move the info for each one to their respective audiobook pages. --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, J.J. Molloy should be removed from the above list. As author of Cacophony, Molloy is not a performer. I could go ahead and merge these entries into the audios as necessary, if preferred. njr75003 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I DO NOT appreciate being referred to as "dumbass". Have some respect for the fellow users here, or I will request you be removed.

THOSE IN CHARGE HERE: See this link for what I mean.

Yeah, I guess Malloy can stay. Njr75003 has already moved the information from the articles and asked they be deleted. This normally isn't the way things are done here, but since he was the sole contributor of each article, I think it's okay. In any case, I guess I'll be deleting the articles now... however, if anyone believes they should have been kept, please bring it up here. --From Andoria with Love 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we need the pictures of the voice actors? The audiobook pages are a great read (good work Njr75003!) but I think the pictures are making the pages look less streamlined and come pretty close to non-canon country, otherwise we could do the same for all the performers voicing characters in the computer games, audio-comics etc. As far as I know, we try to use screenshots from the episodes and movies whenever possible, also when we want to add a picture of a behind-the-scenes person (screenshots from the documentaries on the DVDs). I don't know if we need all those pictures, just my two cents. --Jörg 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. I'm also wondering if the images violate copyright - some come from IMDb, others from other websites. --From Andoria with Love 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Greys Edit

A joke. Should probably be up for immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 02:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Completely devoid of Trek content. Aholland 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Jaz talk 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Jörg 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Space vermin Edit

Space vermin 
Non-canon, possibly meant to describe those acid-spitting slugs on Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force. --From Andoria with Love 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Renegade54 21:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jörg 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Aholland 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... nothing links to it either. -- Sulfur 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1 May 2006Edit

Multiverse Edit

See the Discussion page on this one. It claims to be a term to describe our universe, yet no one can find any instance of Trek usage. Non-canon, non-Trek content, even though episodes are cited that do not use the term. Aholland 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not even trek related; I believe the term comes from DC comics. Jaz talk 02:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. By the way, this qualifies as non-canon, which means it can go bye-bye in two days. :D --From Andoria with Love 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

25 April 2006Edit


It's the birthplace of Russell Watson... and that's it. the information can be found at Watson's article; a seperate article on his or anyone's hometown is not needed. --From Andoria with Love 14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, else every city on Earth will be added over time.Aholland 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Aholland, and I don't really see the need for it offhand. -- Sulfur 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes for Undeletion discussion 4 August 2009 Edit

Moved from Talk:England

I suggest the re-creation ofthe Manchester page. The character 'Olson' was meant to be from there. RicoRichmond 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was meant to be"? Unless it was said in an episode that he was from there, it shouldn't have its own article. If it was mentioned in a script or by a writer/producer, it could be mentioned on Olson's page.--31dot 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you discuss this at Memory Alpha:Votes for undeletion.--31dot 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His article said that he spoke with a Mancunian accent. RicoRichmond 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is the original deletion discussion.
I don't think that is sufficient evidence to restore this. We have rejected an article Charles De Gaulle based on the mention of Gaullism. --31dot 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep Deleted - This article reminds me of the off by one issue with a lot of newer articles here. Because one thing exists we can make articles related to that one thing... — Morder (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanderer K-47Edit

Wanderer K-47 
Non-canon info created by the same anon who made the above page. --From Andoria with Love 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Blake's 7 ship name with a Trek patina added. Aholland 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: what is it even from? A book? comic? I've never heard of it, nor can i find anything about it anywhere else. Sulfur 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Sulfur: see the Blake's 7 info here. It was a type of sleeper ship from that universe. Aholland 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

20 April 2006Edit

Template:Redlink Edit

Unnecessary, see template talk page. -- Cid Highwind 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is truly a topic that generates a high number of unwritten articles, a "pna" notice could be used to more effectively guide archivists to the topic needing attention. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Izar colony Edit

Non-canon, taken from Garth of Izar. Jaz talk 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Aholland 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete we need to know more aboutthe actual planet (i.e. class, cities, federation yes/no)--Sciofficer 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As we've discussed here before, we don't even know that Izar is a planet. Jaz talk 23:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

10 April 2006Edit

Kazar Edit

The only information on the Kazarites comes from notes by Robert Fletcher and Fred Phillips. Those notes are reproduced in full in The Making of Star Trek The Motion Picture. The homeworld of the Kazarites is not mentioned and the existance of "Kazar" is pure speculation. Aholland 13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The phase Edit

I built this page off of the References from "Manhunt" but it turns out to be a duplicate of the better named Betazoid phase. I've corrected links to the newer version but it should be deleted now...Logan 5 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can keep it as a redirect, at least. --From Andoria with Love 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heratic Edit

Mike marked this for deletion but aparently forgot to place it here. ;) This is an imaginary episode for a non-existing eighth season of Star Trek: Voyager, perhaps taken from that Virtual Season Eight crap I've seen around online. Besides, it's misspelled anyway. (Non-canon; will be deleted in two days.) --From Andoria with Love 02:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
had to go on a mission, thanks for catching it XD .. Maybe we should make a template directing people to the most prominent fan-fiction wiki (would the one on wikia be sufficient?) to try and communicate this better. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

4 April 2006Edit

Service section, Habitat module, modular spacecraft, Monopropellant Edit

These articles contain absolutely no Star Trek content and no articles outside of this group link to them. They speculate on the construction of Ares IV, but none of it is in the episode VOY: "One Small Step". Anyway, I'm just trying to get rid of some pna-cite's. So, I thought I would post this here and let you tell me what the right thing is. --Bp 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I realize the ISS can be seen in the ENT opening, but we don't need articles about it's components. Jaz talk | novels 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all for reasons noted above. Aholland 03:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Jaz and Bp. Galaxy001talk 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I remember when these were created. I had doubts about them then, but plenty of time has passed for their author to return and cite the sources. Delete as per Bp and Jaz. --From Andoria with Love 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Beatrice ArthurEdit

Beatrice Arthur
Unsourced, uncredited supposition. The only place where she is listed as being the voice of Suspiria is at the IMDb, which is not a highly reliable source and was likely put there as a joke. Also, the voice in the episode sounds nothing like her. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment: The same might be true for Jason Marsden voicing Raymond Marr and Dustin Diamond playing the wind dancer in "Cost of Living". Where, apart from the IMDb is that info from? --Jörg 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
True. I'm willing to give Jason Marsden the benefit of the doubt since he is a well-known voice actor (he's been credited in a confirmed role on Trek anyway), but the Dustin Diamond IMDb credit seems like it may have been the work of the same trickster... -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The Dustin Diamond reference also made it to Wikipedia. Anyway, back on topic... --Alan del Beccio 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that some sort of verification is needed -- perhaps this is a good way to take advantage of using a research policy to find another way to verify whether these actors took part in the productions that WP and IMDb credit them with. Emailing someone's publicist, perhaps? -- Captain M.K.B. 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but I just watched the episode... Arthur has a very distinctive voice. This person was clearly not her. Besides, I think it would've been mentioned elsewhere by now if it were true, or she would've been credited as "voice of Suspiria" in the first place... she's a fairly well-known actress. And it isn't the first time IMDb information has been tampered with... it's not difficult to do especially with obscure things like this. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're sure there's nothing official saying she was the voice, then delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Shran; if people who have looked into it are convinced that Imdb is wrong, then delete and fix the links in other articles that point to it. Aholland 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded starship class templates Edit

AndromedaClassStarships, Template:DenevaClassStarships, Template:FederationClassStarships, Template:KorolevClassStarships, Template:MediterraneanClassStarships, Template:NiagaraClassStarships, Template:OlympicClassStarships, Template:RigelClassStarships, Template:SpringfieldClassStarships, Template:SteamrunnerClassStarships, Template:WambunduClassStarships (2 ships listed); Template:CheyenneClassStarships, Template:ChimeraClassStarships, Template:Hokule‘aClassStarships, Template:MercedClassStarships, Template:NorwayClassStarships, Template:SaberClassStarships, Template:SoyuzClassStarships, Template:WellsClassStarships, Template:YorkshireClassStarships, Template:ZodiacClassStarships (1 ship listed): I don't think we need templates for classes with only two ships attached to them... especially since half of the ships listed may be deleted, leaving only one ship listed on each, making the templates even more unnecessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote Delete as I believe the minimum should be kept at 3 starships, as per my wishes on a talk page somewhere. I don't think it's a good idea, and it looks better with 3+ to me. (BTW, you're supposed to add the deletion template to a template's talk page).--Tim Thomason 10:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Aholland 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete those with only one ship, as those are simply unnecessary. I'm not so sure about those with more than one, though, and vote to keep those for the moment - we either want direct links between ships of the same class or we don't, independent of the actual number of known ships of that class. For consistency, shouldn't we have these navigation templates whenever there is something to navigate? -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seeing as it's kind of redundant to have single link templates. For two ships, it's kind of iffy, but definitely keep those that have more than three links. - Enzo Aquarius 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've seperated those with one ship listed from those with two. --From Andoria with Love 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful for navigation, I use them all the time. Jaz talk | novels 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cid. --Galaxy001 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Star Trek is its own universe, the classes have names from background information not available to everyone. Also from backstage information (or common sense) is that Starfleet vessels are named after its prototype so technically there should be at least two ships listed on every navigation template -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've gone ahead and deleted those with only one ship on 'em, but I went ahead and held off on deleting the ones with two ships, as per Cid, Jaz, and Kobi. Does anybody else believe these should stay? --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sooo... do ya'll wanna keep these? There's only two ships on the remaining templates. So far, we have four votes for their deletion and four votes to keep them. I think yesterday was the last day, so if there are no more votes against keeping them, then we'll keep 'em, as per policy. --From Andoria with Love 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, no consensus to delete these was reached, so I guess we'll be keeping them. So... where do we archive this discussion? Can't do it for every single template article we kept, so I think we should just place it in the deletion archive. --From Andoria with Love 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

20 March 2006Edit

Interstellar travel Edit

  • Although there may be a practical reason for this article, if written properly, however, in it's current format, there is ZERO Trek relevancy to this article. --Alan del Beccio 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although we may be able to merge some info with the Warp drive page or something. But otherwise, although it is a great article, it has no relevance to star trek the way it is written. In other words, per Alan.  :P --Galaxy001 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is, essentially, the Alderson Drive from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye". See Aholland 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

17 March 2006Edit

Borderlands Edit

  • This is an example of "fan gaming", a troublesome precedent would be created by keeping one person's homemade roleplayer, and not everybody's. External links to fan gaming can be added to "fan gaming". -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We finally got rid of FlashTrek, and here comes another one. Oy! :P --From Andoria with Love 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is also an obvious attempt at advertising that website by linking to it seven(!) times from the article. Delete. -- Cid Highwind 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Amazon Standardized Inventory Number Edit

I've noticed Memory Alpha has instituted an ASIN template for ordering from Amazon, and since the ASIN page I created has been deleted, I suppose we might as well delete the corresponding talk page--Robert Treat 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

14 March 2006Edit

FlashTrek Edit

  • No canon content, delete. -- Renegade54 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move or merge into an appropriate page about such things. It's a real game, I found that much out. Looks promising[2]. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/merge somewhere. We can have articles for games, but I think those are only for games officially licensed by Paramount Pictures. --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/merge. It is legit as part of the larger Trek Franchise and could be combined with - say - a list of non-Paramount licensed games. Aholland 14:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Federation starship prototype namesEdit

USS Istanbul
  • This entry is speculation without any identified basis, not even a secondary production art or reference work citation. The article even acknowledges this itself. Aholland 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
USS Zodiac, USS Wells, USS Surak, USS Wambundu, USS Steamrunner, USS Sovereign, USS Soyuz, USS Sequoia, USS Saber, USS Rigel, USS Renaissance, USS Olympic, USS Norway, USS Niagara, USS New Orleans, USS Nebula, USS Miranda, USS Merced, USS Mediterranean, USS Hokule'a; USS Deneva, USS Daedalus, USS Chimera, USS Cheyenne, USS Apollo, USS Andromeda,
SS Erewon (late addition)
  • As it is stated in a few of these articles: "we can infer that it existed based on Federation's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype." Not the most eloquent wording, but the naming from what we've seen it is an accurate observation, i.e. the USS Excelsior, USS Galaxy, etc. So to save some time on this long standing debate, let's do this in one fell swoop. --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can vote on the single article I suggested for deletion, but as to any other article on a Starship that does not have a single resource of any sort to back it up other than "it seems reasonable to assume" I vote to Delete. After all, if common practice observed in Trek can be used as the sole basis for speculative articles we open the doors to all kinds of fanon; something I believe this site desires to avoid. Aholland 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The line must be drawn here! This far! No further! --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: For the record, my vote was a joke, so don't take it seriously. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all of the Starfleet ships (including Istanbul). It has been shown in several episodes that it is Federation practice to name a class after the prototype ship (at least by the 2240s). If we are meant to be complete then articles should be made for these classes' prototypes, which are inferred from any source mentioning or showing the class name.--Tim Thomason 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep USS Wambundu, USS Daedalus and any articles with legitimate information that's verifiable, delete the others. They don't tell us anything about the ship and, for instance, I highly doubt they'd have a USS Olympic as opposed to a USS Olympus for the Olympic class. The fact is they don't really tell us anything of value if they just make conjectures - even if it is a tradition, we don't have to have articles on them just because it's "normally" done, in addition to cases like the Olympic class. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Istanbul since the class was (apparently) never mentioned in onscreen material we have access to. Keep the rest (perhaps merging/renaming the Olympic/Olympus uncertainty). It is pretty straight-forward how Federation starship classes are named. I think our energies would be better spent finding other non-canon topics to weed out rather than these starships, all of which, besides Istanbul, have their class havng been mentioned either in dialogue or on accessible background art such as computer displays/animations/printouts. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vedek Dukat. However, move USS Olympic if we keep it. Makon 05:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Presumably your intention is to duplicate Dukat's vote of keeping all the verifiable ones, meaning only delete exceptions (so far, to my knowledge, including Istanbul and the Olymp(ic)us). Please specify if any intention was different. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 06:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologise for the confusion. My stance is that we should delete any starships whose existence is not known. Inferences from tradition don't necessitate an article. The Olympic is a perfect example -- although, in response to Cid Highwind's comment below, Olympic would be the adjective formed from the noun Olympus (or Olympia?) -- of a case where we don't know what the prototype was called, if it existed. What do we gain from these pages? I click on one of them, am presented with "This was probably the prototype for the eponymous starship class, although it was never mentioned or seen anywhere and its existence isn't certain" and I promptly feel cheated, because I wasted my time in visiting that page, which tells me nothing I didn't know already. Makon 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename USS Olympus and delete the Istanbul per Captainmike, but keep the rest. Tim convinced me over IRC that the Olympus issue isn't enough to delete them over, as we can correct errors as we encounter them. I still think we had this conversation before though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After a number of edit conflicts, delete Istanbul, keep the rest. Geez! --From Andoria with Love 06:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting on this issue either way, but have we confirmed all the other ships as having their class names appear on screen? I think a closer look needs to be made at some of those listed because I'm not sure I see that the USS Andromeda/Andromeda class was, both the USS Drake and USS Prokofiev were referred to in dialog, and did not appear in any displays/diagrams. -Alan del Beccio 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's that Olympic/Olympus discussion about? Names ending in "-ic" seem to be valid ship names in real-life (Titanic, Britannic, Majestic, ...). How someone can infer the name "Olympus" from an "Olympic" class I don't really understand - and thus disagree with a page move, should the article continue to exist. Regarding the original suggestion, I agree that all articles about ships that haven't been named on-screen should be removed. However, since a) naming ships after the class seems to be common practice and b) we can't say anything special about a ship we haven't heard of anyway... Wouldn't it be a good compromise to turn all those ship names into redirects to the class articles and add a note that "a ship with that name might exist as the class prototype" to those articles? -- Cid Highwind 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the guy who first suggested deletion of the USS Istanbul, I would support a redirect with a note as suggested by Cid in lieu of deletion. Aholland 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I go with the "divided" delete/keep vote like Captainmike and Vedek Dukat, dependent on if the the class was mentioned onscreen (keep then) or not (delete then). Also delete the Klingon prototype ships as we do not know their policy. But we DO know the UFP policy, so IMO it would be just wrong to delete USS Sovereign or USS Nebula for instance. Kennelly 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, we don't really know about this "UFP policy". Tell me, of how many (and which) ship classes do we know both the class name and about the existance of a prototype vessel of the same name from onscreen sources? -- Cid Highwind 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Klingon ones should be deleted, since there is no canon evidence that the Klingon ships are named after the prototype, however, there is suffcient canon evidence that on Federation starships, the class is named after the prototype of the class. Some canon examples are:
  • I think it is right to keep the articles of the Federation prototypes that we haven't seen, because of the canon evidence right in front fo us. I vote NO on deletion for the articles of the Federeation ships. -- Ensign q 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to state the obvious (something I excel at), no one has yet provided a resource for Cid stating the practice that Starfleet always, without fail, in all situations and at all times, has a ship named after a class. A number of examples increases probability, but we're supposed to deal with valid resources here, not the odds. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep!--Mafeu 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • An explaination would be nice to support your vote with. --Alan del Beccio 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here's a challenge. Take the "Canon policy" (even take the old one if you like) and tell me how, according to that policy, an article about a starship that hasn't been named directly, but whose name is only derived from a class name and the assumption that "this is what the UFP always does", should stay. If you can't, we don't even need to have this vote - if this is not from a valid resource, it needs to go. If you can, we can still talk about the fact that these pages basically contain no information besides the fact that "this probably is the prototype of the X class" - in that case, why don't we simply redirect to the class article anyway? -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, from that list above you can already remove the Constitution, the Whorfin (according to background information on their article), the Oberth and even the Galaxy (no NX-prefix according to their article). I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is hardly "hard evidence" either. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I say we merge and redirect the works of these to prototype, being as they are already listed there it won't take much work. Jaf 13:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
  • Oh, fine fine, delete them all. "This line must be drawn here! This far! No farther!" (no joking this time) --From Andoria with Love 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah to add to that list: USS Intrepid (NX-74600) - Ensign q 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What is your source for the NX prefix on this ship and those that Cid referenced above? I think the Excelsior is the only ship we've seen on screen change from an NX to a NCC, the rest never changed or are being "made up" for the sake of your list. --Alan del Beccio 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep (Istanbul was included in Encyclopedia first edition, so it was likely included in many later appearences causing canonicity from non-canon appearance) -- Kobi - (Talk) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is the Istanbul as a class or the USS Istanbul itself in the Encyclopedia? And was it pulled from later editions (you cited the first which made me wonder)? Aholland 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Encyclopedia is prone to speculation, I believe. I just thought I'd point that out. But I guess since it's made by people involved in the productions, it's considered a valid source (albeit non-canon), so Istanbul and any other speculative prototype listed in the Encyclopedia are fair game and should be kept... I guess. I, personally, was under the impression that we didn't follow what other Encyclopedias did, no matter how official they are, but I guess I was wrong. :P (By the way, I vote to keep all USS Intrepids) --From Andoria with Love 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Even I would be okay with basing the ship on the Encyclopedia (as a permitted non-canon resource, like you said), but apparently only the class of ship is in there; not the USS Istanbul itself. Aholland 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Found another canon one: USS Bradbury (NX-72307). Come on guys, I think there is enough canon evidence to support this theory. Let's keep these ships. Ensign q 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Most all of the ships you've listed have had a purpose in the series, and were either stated in dialog or appeared on a diagram somewhere. Those aren't listed here for deletion, nor does referencing them here and now really "prove" these other ships existed-- like you said, it's a theory. But when it all boils down, what is the point of having an article about a starship that says nothing of consequence, while at the same time references a class name that is almost equally inconsequential? Example: USS Chimera/Chimera class. --Alan del Beccio 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • THe point is that this ship prototype-ship class name practice is canon, and all ships must be listed, no matter who little information is stated.

Ensign q 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ensign q, the question is not whether the practice is canon; for purposes of Memory Alpha it clearly isn't. (See content and resource policies). The question is whether to nonetheless list ships in Memory Alpha in separate articles when they have no reference anywhere but are presumed to exist in theory by some because of certain observed instances of a ship having the same name as a class. (By the way, I'd put this on your Talk page, but I can't find it - sorry!) Aholland 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to Merge and redirect to the class page. On the class page, it can be specified if there is any canonical reference to the prototype. Camel828 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Within my own canon, TOS, TNG and the first 6 movies, the only example is the Excelsior (But was it ever called Excelsior Class?). Although the Galaxy is an interesting point, consider this, in an alternate time line created when the Enterprise-C jumped 20 years ahead, Tasha tells us that the first Galaxy Class starship is the USS Enterprise. --TOSrules 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so... time's up. What are we keeping and what are we deleting? :P --From Andoria with Love 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... So far, there hasn't been a valid reference for the claimed "UFP policy" - and as long as we don't get that (which means that all we have at the moment is assumption), it is a ridiculous idea to even have a vote here to keep these pages. Last time I checked, Vfd discussions were not meant to circumvent canon policy, and I don't think we should start that here and now by keeping articles that don't have any important content anyway... -- Cid Highwind 09:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, sounds good to me. I shall begin the deletion process shortly. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Screw democracy. Weyoun 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we should just redirect these to the class names (like I believe was suggested above) and make a note on their class pages along the lines of "although several classes have had examples of starships bearing the same name as the class, there has been no indication that this is naming method was used with this class." Something like that, because somehow I can see a month or more on down the line someone starship fanatic coming in and recreating these pages (which is why they were created in the first place). If we simply redirect them to their class page and leave that explaination we will hopefully eliminiate the possibility of facing this discussion again in the future. --Alan del Beccio 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I do prefer the redirect idea as I can easily see the above scenario occuring (hell, I would have done it if I didn't know better). On a side note, it wasn't fun seeing Shran chop down my hard work on the prototype page. ;) - Intricated 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all the prototypes listed above have been turned into redirects to their respective ship classes, as suggested. The only exception is the USS Sovereign, which remains as there are production notes to support its existence and should be discussed further before being turned into a redirect. (PS to Intricated: I rather enjoyed myself. :D Okay, not really, but hey... them's the rules. When the need arises... "chop chop". :/) --From Andoria with Love 16:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why has this been done when the majority of voters opted to keep? Don't you need a two thirds majority? Thid didn't even have half. Pages should be moved back. Jaz talk | novels 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Votes don't make canon. See Cid's comments above from earlier this morning, which cann be pretty much summed up with: "Vfd discussions were not meant to circumvent canon policy." --Alan del Beccio 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Archived. --From Andoria with Love 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006Edit

M43 Alpha systemEdit

I know this might be a major problem and all, but M43 Alpha system is not canon, never in the episode did they give a name to the system that contained Zeon and Ekos, it was one system, just unnamed. --TOSrules 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the source of this, at least one of them, is the Star Trek Concordance. There also appears to be several search results for the term on Google. --Alan del Beccio 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TOSrules is correct. Not even the Blish adaptation (based on the final scripts) used this designation. I think it was just some speculation that crept in and stayed. The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't have it as an entry (but does mention it with Ekos), nor does In short, the places one would expect to find it don't have it. It should be deleted or renamed to "unknown system" (although I'm not sure the value of that.) Aholland 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete but by creating an article such as Unnamed star systems, we can implement this system. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not canon, but I would advise against an "unnamed systems" page. These "unnamed X" list articles make sense if there was one or more "X" seen/referenced but not named, for example in the case of characters, starships, items etc. With "unnamed star systems", there isn't really much more info than what planets are a part of it, and in the few cases where there even is more than one planet in a system, that could simply be mentioned on the articles about the planets. -- Cid Highwind 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well on my site it is called the Zeta Eta Star System. Originally I called it the ZE star system, standing for Zeon and Ekos, but that was a bit lame, so I decided to go with the Roman letters Zeta Eta. One could make an argument that this system having 2 planes, that we know which is inner and which is outer should have it's own system. Anyways, that is how it is done on my site. --TOSrules 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Vulcan Defense Forces Edit

  • Fabricated from the line "Vulcan defense vessels are also responding... the Romulan force is retreating toward the Neutral Zone..." --Alan del Beccio 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Probably an honest mistake, though. Aholland 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This has since been turned into a redirect to Vulcan defense vessel. Do we still wanna get rid of it? --From Andoria with Love 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The new article has some issues, but I think that an article based on "Vulcan defense vessel" - an actual line in the show - should not be deleted. Aholland 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Archived. --From Andoria with Love 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Klingon starship prototype namesEdit

IKS B'rel, IKS K't'inga, IKS K'vort
  • I'm pulling these from the other entries as they really fall under a whole different discussion, and as I previously stated above, "there is no indication that Klingons name the classes after the first ship commissioned. (see: talk:Negh'Var class)" --Alan del Beccio 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, sure, go ahead and delete them, if we're sure the Klingon practice of naming a ship's class after the prototype was never revealed. --From Andoria with Love 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the practice with the Klingons is as speculative as the practice within Starfleet. Aholland 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no canon evidence from what I have seen that indicates that Klingons use the same "name class after prototype" practice as Starfleet does. -- -- unsigned (User:Ensign q)
  • Delete. --Galaxy001 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Mafeu 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

07 March 2006Edit

Amazon Standardized Inventory Number Edit

Not sure I see how this applies to anything --Alan del Beccio 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete that and also ASIN. I don't think we need to make it even easier for Amazon to get rich quick... ;) -- Cid Highwind
  • Delete Not Trek related. Aholland 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow-up: Although Robert Treat has, I think, genuinely good motives, this site is neither a catalog nor a clearinghouse for products. I still vote to Delete. Aholland 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I added it because I thought it would help fans order Trek products from I figured you could wiki-link the "ISBN"s Amazon has listed for TOS episodes and MA would earn the sales commission described and it would help support the site. Some Trek Audio CDs are also marketed under ASINs and are not always linked to other editions at Amazon. One example is The Return by the Reeves-Shatner team. The Audio CD edition seems to be listed twice at, because you can find it in their Popular Music section using the ASIN I have listed, and if you drag the catalog number (the actual ISBN) they have shown into the search rectangle you'll find the same title in the books section! Problem is, the other editions only have links to the edition shown in Books, which had no used copies available last time I checked, and people might not realize they would be able to find used copies available in Pop-Music. And yes, I have written to Amazon about this.
  • At Amazon's U.S. site they also have Box Set editions of Trek books in the Music section. Some of them are linked to other editions (such as Crossover, Federation by the Reeves-Stevens, and The Ashes of Eden) while others don't. The visually impared can find a Braille edition of The Devil's Heart by searching for the ASIN I have listed for that title--Robert Treat 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Wales Edit

No Trek references... the articles even says so! -- Renegade54 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Adult versions of child charactersEdit

Naomi Wildman (adult) 
We've been down this road before, this was previously deleted. Unless we really have an entire alternate history of a character's entire lifetime in an alternate timeline or universe, there really isn't much reason to include a brief alternate-future cameo as a part of the character's main article. Seeing as the adult Naomi had only a few minutes of screentime, there's nothing that can't be reconciled as part of her own article. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand the problem. When I click on the link up above I get a regular Naomi Wildman article with a reasonable subsection on her as an adult. Seems okay to me. Am I missing something? Aholland 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The article was converted to a redirect. I'm recommending deletion of the redirect. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the redirect should be deleted as there are no links now and I don't think any pages should link to it in the future.--Tim Thomason 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah! I agree, then. Delete.Aholland 21:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoops! I guess I shoulda checked out the Vfd before deleting the redirect. Anyways, the redirect had previously been deleted (as it was just downright unnecessary), so it qualified as an immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i think that i meant to place it on the immed. deletion page, but i didn't realize it was here til Aholland pointed it out. Good riddance, though! :) -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2 March 2006 Edit

Non-canon Starships Edit

USS Da Vinci; USS Orion; USS Stavanger; USS Trondheim; USS Tromso; USS Lillehammer; USS Bodo; USS Oslo; USS Narvik. --Alan del Beccio 23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Assuming none of these are from valid resources, I vote to delete. Aholland 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They're all non-canon (possibly even fan fiction), meaning they'll be deleted in two days time... so it's a good thing I'm voting delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

27 February 2006Edit

Category:Starfleet starship classesEdit

Category:Starfleet starship classes 
This category has not been agreed upon, and should be discussed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions where the details can be hammered out (for example, some starship classes are only sometimes used by Starfleet, like the Oberth-class).--Tim Thomason 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If the policy is to pre-discuss category suggestions, then it should be deleted pending such discussion. Aholland 05:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I strongly feel that unagreed upon categories should be deleted immediately.) --From Andoria with Love 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

26 February 2006Edit

Decipher personnelEdit

Christian Moore and Jeannie Glover
  • I'm not sure I see a valid reason to keep this individual in our database. --Alan del Beccio 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed; delete both. Aholland 04:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But they worked at Decipher! That's legit, ain't it? Nah!!! Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages Edit

Piper (disambiguation)
  • Unnecessary as there is only two pipers, Piper and Mark Piper. I placed a disambiguation note at the top of "Piper" for anyone who was looking for Mark and stumbled upon Miss Piper, solving the necessity of the third Piper page posted above. --Alan del Beccio 10:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

25 February 2006Edit

Lambda Prime Edit

Lambda Prime 
This looks like a bogus article to me, perhaps somebody's fan fiction. I can fine no references to it's relation to Trek here or on Google. --From Andoria with Love 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then. I was wondering about it, because it didn't sound at all familiar to me, either. -- Renegade54 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find anything on it either. Aholland 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: No known canon or non-canon pages to merge/redirect it, so we should treat it like fan fiction and delete it.--Tim Thomason 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

USS Black HawkEdit

USS Black Hawk 
No Trek relevance. Page just talks about 4 real (I think) US Navy ships ending in 1999. I can't find any mentions in Star Trek.--Tim Thomason 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No citations; no known use. Aholland 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No need to have ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

24 February 2006Edit

User:Mike Nobody (from Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements)Edit

User:Mike Nobody 
This page contains several dozen links to off-site mp3 files. I don't feel like checking any or all of them, but judging the file names, at least some of them seem to be from published artists without being properly attributed or anything (see: Memory Alpha:Copyrights). On top of that, it is a big frakking list of files that have nothing to do whatsoever with Memory Alpha or Star Trek. User pages are not storage space (see: Memory Alpha:Your user page), so even if this not considered a copyvio for whatever reasons, I think it still needs to be removed. Note: Since this is a user page, I did not edit it to remove content or put a copyvio message on it, but instead left a note on the user talk page. -- Cid Highwind 10:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not:

#5 Storage space. Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project. (This includes your personal User: pages.)
  • Sheesh. This page definitely needs a cleanup... --Memory 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no non-Trek material being stored on my Memory Alpha userpage. All non-Trek related files are hosted elsewhere. It was Captainmike who originally pointed out I could host such non-trek images and files on sites like, whom I hadn't even heard of before he recommended them. I was under the impression that a userpage wasn't about Star Trek anyway, and it was available to the user to pretty much communicate as they wish. I was under the impression that it is personal space to share interests with other users, tell a little about yourself, etc. What's the point if they're not?--Mike Nobody =/\= 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the guidelines I posted above, "the point is" to store material related to "the project." Additionally, the issue here is the huge list of links to copyrighted music more than the images. It's a profile page on a Star Trek wikisite, not a MySpace or Friendster profile. --Alan del Beccio 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope we're not talking about deleting the user's entire page here. Just remove the copyrighted material. Which is pretty much everything on the page, so... I dunno. Regardless, I agree that the page is a series of copyright infringements and should be dealt with in any way possible. --From Andoria with Love 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I think we're not talking about deletion. First, this is about potentially copyrighted material which would have to be removed - and I think we already agree on that. The best solution would be for Mike to do that himself soon - otherwise, one of the admins would have to do that. Second, I think a clarification of our policies is necessary. The copyrights policy should make clear that even externally linked pages or files should not infringe any copyrights (otherwise that link should be a candidate for immediate removal), while the user page policy should list filetypes that are "allowed" to be externally linked from a user page. We should restrict ourselves to weblinks and image files only. -- Cid Highwind 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Re:Mike: There's still some discussion about what exactly is or isn't "allowed" on a user page - but what should be very clear is the simple fact that no user should be allowed to post direct links to copyrighted material (exception: material is related to Star Trek AND fair use guidelines apply) on Memory Alpha. A link to an mp3 file by a well-known, published group is neither the one nor the other - and since we can't be bothered to check every single file a user want to link to, I think we should disallow direct links to mp3 files completely. Additionally, it isn't necessary to have these file lists of you only want to "share interests". -- Cid Highwind 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had mp3 files and images linked to my userpage for several months without any complaints. What suddenly brought this on? I have a definite feeling this is politically motivated, since I'm only getting all this after my recent additions. I couldn't contribute for awhile, after some computer problems. The last wiki upgrade seems to have cleared it up. I came back, added some links, and all of a sudden I feel like I've been dragged to an intervention. What's the deal?--Mike Nobody =/\= 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The "deal" is that I just found out about those links when I checked your last edits to your page. This is neither "personal" nor "political", and I apoligize if my earlier comments sounded like it was. Still, the fact that this is copyrighted content remains. -- Cid Highwind 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And, I'll repeat, all non-trek content is not on Memory Alpha servers. Captainmike had this discussion with me when I first started contributing to Memory Alpha last year. he (and a few other administrators) made me take the Bart Simpson picture down, but recommended hosting elsewhere. If its not on M/A servers, where's the justification to take down "links". It isn't true that you "just found out" I had these links either, since we've communicated many times before. So, something's instigated this recently. The only recent thing I've done is add a few more links and take down my "away" notice.--Mike Nobody =/\= 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an aweful paranoid response. The fact is, at least in my case, I don't ever read user pages, but "just found out" about yours recently, as well. It sort of stood out after you made a good dozen edits to it in one night, yet no actual contributions to the site-- which in itself seems a bit odd. That's when I decided to see what was going on with it. Unlike Cid, I didn't mention anything about it becuase I really didnt want to deal with this otherwise prime example of your overreacting to "the Man" -- this entire conversation seems to be coming across as. I suspect Cid "just found out" about it under the same conditions. --Alan del Beccio 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:Your user page

I don't know if this is M/A or just me, but, sidebars aren't showing on my screen. The code is still there and seems OK. I may be having problems with my computer, but it seems to only affect M/A. Please reply.--Mike Nobody =/\= 21:04, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mike. All I can definitely say is that it is not MA - the sidebars work just fine for me. It sounds as if the page doesn't load completely, which could have a variety of reasons, including temporary issues with MA's servers and/or your internet connection. It might also be a problem with the CSS files: click on the following link and force a reload of that page (Ctrl+F5, probably): [3]. If all this doesn't help, perhaps you can describe your problem in more detail or make a screenshot? -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
And what has this to do with anything? Fact is, I talked to you in the past. Fact also is, I don't have to visit your user page to do so. Additionally, while I might have had a short look at your user page in the past, just now I had a look at a diff of your recent changes to it, where all those filenames were nicely marked in red (while the filenames themselves are not directly visible by just looking at the page). So, basically, my story is very similar to the one Gvsualan already told you. Don't accuse me of lying or having any hidden agenda.
Anyway, let us now leave this tangent - your user page still contains links to copyrighted mp3 files. Do you want to remove these links yourself? -- Cid Highwind 10:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of lying. You are. You've since deleted some of our discussions on your talk page regarding external links. The one I posted is just about all that's left on mine. So, the evidence of most of your lying is now deleted. But, however you want to distort this, there is the issue of what is M/A's policy toward user pages actually is.

According to M/A policy, "your user page is yours. No other user is allowed to edit your user page. If another user edits your personal user page, it might be considered an act of vandalism. An Administrator may edit an external link to avoid linking out to sites which are classified as "spam" .Uploaded files that are not directly related to an article will be deleted immediately.

So the question is "Have I linked to sites classified as 'spam'?" and "Why?" and "Have I uploaded files not related to the project?" The answers are "No." and "No." If I uploaded Mp3s or images unrelated to the project to M/A's servers, you'd be right that I was violating M/A policy. But, I haven't. If it's on my page it's my business, not yours. If it's on another server, it's their business, not yours. And drawing this arbitrary line between copyrighted Mp3s and copyrighted images makes no sense at all, since it's arguable that the whole site is violating copyright law every day. "Fair Use" law has been weakened so much over the last decade or so that it is meaningless as a defense. You're allowed to do what the copyright holder allows you to do. It's simple as that. Get on their bad side and they'll yank everything, no matter how much anyone tries to claim "Fair Use".

Is there a bureaucrat to consult on this?--Mike Nobody =/\= 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although not listed as such, Cid is a bureaucrat here, which is probably a good reason why he started this discussion, and is consulting you on the subject. And I ask again, what is with this "conspiracy theory" talk? Seriously. You of all people should be arguing violations of copyrights due to the simple fact that you should have been suspended quite some time ago for your numerous copyright violations that you clearly committed, and that I need not remind everyone about. Yet for some reason you are still around and continue to tempt fate and continue to kick and scream and call us "liars" like an 8 year old would about us enforcing anything against you and this thin line you like to walk that everyone else here seems to understand.
For one, why are you even here? You clearly have more interest in writing a personal webpage here than actually contributing to the progress of this site. In fact, in the past 5 weeks you have made 0 (that is "ZERO") contributions to any Star Trek articles on Memory Alpha. However, in the same period of time you have made 35 edits to your user page. Take a step back from that timeline two weeks and you may notice that in the past 7 weeks you have made all of 15 minor Star Trek article contributions to Memory Alpha, yet have made almost 90 edits to your user page!! Clearly this is an abuse of the space this website is offering you and clearly this goes beyond the point intended in having a user page.
Secondly, "Your user page is not storage space"/"Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project." Storing material or using storage space constitutes more than uploading images or files to...but also includes large amounts of text and links. The simple fact is, your user page is 45 kilobytes long, it rivals "Storm Front, Part II" in length for the 13th longest page on this site! So despite the fact that, yes, your user page is yours, you seem not to have taken the time to ask yourself how related to the project your user page is.
Thirdly, one can clearly see that only a relatively small section of Star Trek related info on the page and the rest has nothing to do with this site, your contributions to it, or Star Trek in general, whatsoever. Somehow I don't see how the inclusion of links to copyrighted songs on your user page, which implicate this site for providing links to illegal songs, constitutes matters related the topic. This is quite clearly an abuse of the user space this site has provided for you. (I also highly suggest that you read this page to better understand that there is more than an "arbitrary line" separating what you argue and what this website is established on.) The music industries crack down on the illegal downloading of songs wasn't just for "shits and giggles," it had everything to do with copyrights, one should clearly see that your version of "song sharing" here is no different. You neither own the rights to the songs, nor did the Beatles (among others) likely give you permission to post them here.
So despite what Memory Alpha:Your user page says, Memory Alpha is not here to help you create free webspace. Keep in mind, too, that our regulations are not static. "We should continue to add to this list as we discover interesting new ways of not writing encyclopedia articles!" Your 0:35 ratio of "not writing encyclopedia articles" in combination with violating music copyrights seem to firmly define a new discovery for us to address, and thusly have. Otherwise, I think Cid asked you a question (several, really) that you have managed to reply to with everything, short of an answer. --Alan del Beccio 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Mike, I think the community has made up its mind, that your page doens't fit according to our current policy. My suggestion to you is to delete your page, save it as a txt on your computer, and debate our policy in the appropriate places. If you win, you have your archive to back up your old page. Either way, this has got to end. Jaz 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, take a chill pill, please. You'll give yourself a stroke. Breathe slowly. Breathe. There. You OK? My computer has been acting funny in the last few weeks, as noted above. So, I went a long time without contributing. Prior to that, I had a lot of my work destroyed. I believe that you, Al, were one of the culprits in chopping down my contributions. That's why, before the computer glitch, I spent more time working on my page than other articles. The contributions weren't being appreciated and, according to stated policy, my page isn't really anyone else's business (unless you want to drop a compliment, those are gladly accepted). Talk of "conspiracy theories" comes more from guys like yourself, Al, than me. I simply pointed out that the chronology of events fit a particular pattern. If you want to call that pattern "The Man", that's your conclusion not mine. I'm more interested in what can be done while some only see what can't.

If this is such a big deal, I'll archive the links that connect to questionably copyrighted mp3s until the matter can be brought up with someone with more authority over this site.--Mike Nobody =/\= 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's all we really wanted in the first place, so thank you. However, I would just like to remind you as to the reasons your contributions were being chopped down -- they were either, A.) unneccessary to the purposes of this wiki, B.) non-canon or irrelevent (i.e., not cited anywhere on Trek), and, of course, C.) copyright violations. The only reason we "culprits" chopped down your contributions was because they were against policy -- a policy you seem to love bending and shaping to fit your needs, or ignoring completely. For example, you have again stated that what is on your user page is not of your business. As Alan has pointed out, this is not true; he quoted the following policies: "Your user page is not storage space"/"Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project." Yes, this means your user page, as well. And as for anyone having "more authority" on this site -- the community IS the authority. And, as Jaz pointed out, the community is in full agreement that the content of your user page is way out of line and is an extreme violation of copyright. Lastly, patronizing Alan isn't going to win you any hearts or minds, nor will it make your case any stronger. If you cannot accept the truth, then perhaps it would be best if you leave. --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Charles, you're not one to talk;
Trotter had a less-than-auspicious start as a named member of Memory Alpha. Unfamiliar with the rules and policies of this wiki, he began by adding useless nonsense to a few articles and also blanked articles. However, he was quickly set straight by the likes of Alan del Beccio, and has since become a valued member of Memory Alpha -- or so he likes to think. He also likes to think that he's become an expert on the Star Trek universe; however, he admits that he is always learning new, interesting details... but he wouldn't have it any other way. Should we delete your unrelated items as well? I don't remember that pic of you in any episode, or your personal views. Also, starting off with that passive-aggressive beginning and then attacking me again reflects more poorly on yourself than me.

I've tried to work within M/A policies, but nothing ever pleases you. Even my own userpage. If I'm restricted to only put Star Trek related items on "my" page (as described in M/A policies) then it is not my page anymore. The two objectives are contradictory and self-exclusive. I believed that the goal of M/A was to cultivate a community of people interested in progressing the project. That means more than just showing up for work. It also means allowing for personal freedom and expression (which not everyone is going to agree on). That's how people are encouraged to contribute and get involved. When the joy is strangled out of it, the project loses Human resources and just becomes about a small clique who think they know everything. In every social organization (governments, business, associations, etc.) that's the kiss of death.--Mike Nobody =/\= 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike, this isn't the government out screw you, or the man out to get you. We are just trying to uphold the rules and regulations that the community has agreed upon. Don't get angry at people for upholding those rules, abide by them, and then at a later date you can discuss the validity of those rules. Maybe one day User pages will become a blog of some kind, but not according to our current policies, and those are the ones you need to abide by. Jaz 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if you were conspiring against him, we wouldn't expect you to admit it, so the more you deny it and claim this is not a personal matter, the more you incriminate yourselves and make him a martyr for the cause of... wait, what was the cause aain? I forgot, because the entire thing seems pretty silly to me. Let's be honest here - Mike, you wanted attention (why else would you repeatedly edit a user page for an account you've not used in the past month?) and now you got it. Why not just put all that stuff on a subpage of your Wikipedia user page, where the community is way too big for them to give a damn what you do, and put a link to that here?
On a completely unrelated note, people need to stop coming into the IRC channel, going "Anyone here?" and leaving five minutes later. Within ten minutes of you doing that, there's invariably someone else doing the same thing. Just open a new tab with IRC in it (or download mIRC and minimize it to the tray with flashing on) and leave it open for a while. :P --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I see he has again attempted to twist the subject and the policies to his advantage to no avail and has again used the term "passive-aggressive", likely in reference to his belief we are conspiring against him. Regardless, he has done as we asked (at least, I think he did), so we can let the matter drop now. But for the record, Mike, as we have already said, there's nothing wrong with minor biographical info and one or two non-Trek related pics (hosted elsewhere); your page just went way too far with it, to the point of including copyrighted material, so please don't attempt to use that to your defense again as it really didn't work, since the issue here was copyrighted material, not your own biographical info. :P 'See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The mp3 files that were definite copyright infringements seem to be removed, but there are still links to other mp3 files which might or might not be free of any copyrights. This leaves open the question of whether we should be forced to check each and every external media file that doesn't even have any relevance to the project (another issue that was brought up above). I suggest to close this discussion here (and archive it somewhere, probably on Memory Alpha talk:Copyrights), and will start another discussion about User page contents on Memory Alpha talk:Your user page. -- Cid Highwind 16:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OMG, I just saw this page and nearly had a heart-attack! Poor old Mike, I know he's done wrong, but this is almost at the point of a personal page just to discuss Mike's userpage. I agree with Cid here, its best to just wrap things up. Maybe we need someone like Riva to mediate here, before too many harsh words are said! Zsingaya Talk 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my last comment here, I, too, believe we should put a wrap on this discussion. --From Andoria with Love 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived -Alan del Beccio 07:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

20 February 2006Edit

Andorian Ice-Horse Bird Edit

Andorian Ice-Horse Bird
Not cited, only linked to on Andoria (link was just added by the same contributor who created this article), apparently fan-fiction. Delete and remove link to it. -- Cid Highwind 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Memoryalpha Edit

Redirect to the Main Page. According its creator "This page is actually generated by a fairly often used Wikipedia template." Once again, we are not here to cater to Wikipedia. If someone can find that template on their site, perhaps they can change it to direct to the right page on our site. --Alan del Beccio 00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I delete this already...? Update: I guess not. Well, I meant to. :P --From Andoria with Love 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I know we don't like to cater to Wikipedia, but if it's going to be a helpful redirect, why not keep it at least until the template is fixed? Jaz talk | novels 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Galaxy001 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

17 February 2006Edit


removed from File talk:Cv-6.jpg

deletion consensus File:Cv-6.jpg Edit

IMMEDIATE DELETION: File:Cv-6.jpg. Non-Trek. Ottens 13:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE: It directly relates to the article it is attached to USS Enterprise CV-6. It is a historical use of the name Enterprise. If the Ent-D's lounge has models of old Enterprises, and Archer's office has pictures of old Enterprises, I think we can keep a pic of CV-6. AmdrBoltz 18:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Unsure If it was the CVN-65 it could be kept as that ship was seen. (although it was the Ranger) However, we don't know that the Enterprise mentioned in "Storm Front" was the CV-6. -- rebelstrike 18:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Facts "Meanwhile, Archer wakes up in the apartment of Alicia Travers, who is tending his wounds. She mistakes Archer as a sailor from the Enterprise, a WWII-era aircraft carrier bearing the same name." (From storm front entry). CV-6 was in service till 17 February 1947, and CVN-65 was not commissioned till 25 November 1961. Its reasonable to assume this is CV-6 that is being refered to.
  • An image of the painting as seen in Archer's Ready Room would be more appropriate than this real-world photograph. Ottens 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This ship was definitely mentioned, as it would have definitely been the ship mentioned in Storm Front, but it was not shown in any manner. Unless one of the other Enterprise carrier models (in the rec area or lounges) was the CV-6, there is no Trek-based illustration on the subject (which would be preferable). I tend to want to keep it as it an illustration of a real-life topic (and, as a federal gov't topic, partially open license as long as the photo doesn't have a separate copyright). However, if the TMP, ENT or TNG lounges have any illustrations of the CV-6 as opposed to the more commonly mentioned CVN-65, i'd prefer to replace this with the Trek based illus.-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I can go along with that. If I/anyone else can find a trek pic of this, Im all for it. But for now this is the best picture we have of CV-6 AmdrBoltz 18:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Whats wrong with the picture Ottens placed (other than the fact that the file takes up half the space)? --Gvsualan 07:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It is the wrong vessel, there is a difference between the CV6 and the CVN65 ;) -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Second attempt: File:Cv-6.jpg Edit

As I stated above for the sinatra image, I am very much opposed to using "real world" images for use on a star trek related article. What makes this site unique is straightforward use of images that are derived solely from star trek sources...and not placing images mirroring those found on our wikipedia counterparts, or any other or any random internet site. This ship was never shown on screen, especially in this form of presentation, much less as a model or drawing. --Alan del Beccio 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

13 February 2006Edit

Tough little ship Edit

Tough little ship
  • Aside from being a line said by Riker if FC, there is no reason why this should be a redirect (useful or otherwise) to the USS Defiant (2370). --Alan del Beccio 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt anyone will search "Tough little ship" to get the USS Defiant. --Galaxy001 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jaz talk | novels 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Miniskirt Edit

No trek content, uncited, and the only link is from a talk page. Jaz talk | novels 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I presume the user who wrote this was thinking of Troi's "cosmic-cheerleader" outfit she wore for some of the first season of TNG. Zsingaya Talk 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

box template componentsEdit

Template:End; Template:End box; Template:S-start/Instructions; Template:S-start; Template:Start box; Template:S-inc; Template:Qif; Template:S-ttl; Template:S-bef; Template:Incumbent succession box
  • Essentially an unnecessary and extemely complicated way to make that we have more or less fulfilled with are much simplier style such as found in Template:Federation presidents. --Alan del Beccio 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, quick! Copied from Wikipedia, apparently, and seeing the controversial discussions about QIF and the like there, I never want to see that here again... ;) -- Cid Highwind 09:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Warp drive (Star Trek)Edit

Warp drive (Star Trek)
We agreed not to keep these a couple weeks ago with our votes against The Dauphin (TNG episode). I changed the wikipedia link to link to our Warp drive page directly. --Alan del Beccio 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jaz *** 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's an improper redirect, so I believe it to be an an immediate delete... and deleted it. As I said then, we are not here to cater to the needs of Wikipedia; a correction of the link at Wikipedia is all that needs to be done. There's no need for a useless redirect. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with this being an immediate deletion candidate in the future - however, I think we should always edit the relevant links on Wikipedia in these cases. We don't win anything if Wikipedia links to a Memory Alpha page that doesn't exist. -- Cid Highwind 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode Edit

I'm not sure I see the point or value of this orphaned article. Clearly it is a meta- article, but Memory Alpha is not a dictionary, so why are defining a meta- term here as if we were one? --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, but I would like to see an alphabetical list of all Episodes. I'll get on that if there are no objections. Jaz 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - the non-canon star trek wiki has an article on episodes, but this site doesn't! I don't see why not, as episodes are, after all, usually regarded as canon. --Defiant Administrator | Talk 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alan is right - MA is not a dictionary, which means that this article shouldn't be kept in its current form. However, we don't necessarily need to delete in this case: a redirect to a (yet to be written) article Episodes, whether that's a complete alphabetical list as suggested above or simply a short article linking to the various episode categories might be the best solution. -- Cid Highwind 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I was under the impression that article names should be singular, I support the suggested solution. --Defiant Administrator | Talk 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • They should - unless they are "list articles". Titles of those were abbreviated from the previous "List of Xs" to just "Xs". :) -- Cid Highwind 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Jaz. --Galaxy001 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, next step how do we want to write episodes? Make it an alphabetical listing or make it a chronological lists (by, say, air dates) in the fashion used here? I think it makes it look more appealing, and as well, a good overall chronological "the big picture"-type reference than a basic list. That is if we want to be creative. That way we could link it to the Main Page as a quick reference link. --Alan del Beccio 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hertzsprung-Russell diagram Edit

Hertzsprung-Russell diagram
Going along with the whole, "we're not Wikipedia" philosophy, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to "the project." Spectral classes were hardly (if ever) referenced in Star Trek and this appears to be part of an early project to define things with real world information that were never mentioned on screen. Along with this, of course, would be the corresponding File:Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram.jpg. --Alan del Beccio 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with both deletions. I think this is a very early article from a time where our policies and guidelines weren't as exact as they are now. It just doesn't fit with the rest anymore, and the Spectral class article seems to be enough. We should perhaps move the link to Wikipedia's HRD article to the Spectral class page, though. -- Cid Highwind 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006Edit

These seem familar...Edit

Kesparn, Phasion Beam, A Matter of Anti-Time they from an IP in the range (similar to our vandal from last fall) with contributions like this that are not pulling in google results. --Alan del Beccio 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge VOY: A Matter of Anti-Time and DS9: A Matter of Q are not novels, as they are certainly not episodes. --Alan del Beccio 07:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, these seem to be legitimate. -Vala 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • And to my knowledge, you seem to be... well, no personal attacks right? Anyway speedy delete all. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say you people are stupid, but I still don't like what you've done. What with the threat of Ori attack and everything, you're worrying about articles which may or may not be true. You sicken me. -Vala 08:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Riiiight... anyway, going back to reality: delete them all, quick, fast, and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How ... odd. Delete them all. — THOR =/\= 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How odd, indeed. Delete - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Probably fandom?--Mafeu 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • worrying about articles which may or may not be true. You sicken me. -- Our charter here is to only include those articles which are true. If you are sickened by following our policy, then you should consult a doctor and discontinue use. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason to be here Vash The Stampede 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleted, i think we have a concensus. --Alan del Beccio 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Klingon Assault Group (moved from MA:PFID) Edit

  • This page is basically information and advertisement for an RPG group, currently not allowed by MA standards. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Definately Speedy Delete. This is an advertisement. --Galaxy001 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is an advertisement for the RPG, however it doesn't seem to qualify as a speedy delete and I believe should probably be brought up on the VfD page.--Tim Thomason 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is actually one of several ideas I've had in mind for some time but never got the chance to bring to people's attention. Creating articles on fan clubs such as this would be a great way to stay true to our mandate of "everything related to Star Trek", but if no one else is interested in the idea, we might as well be done with it. Either way, yeah, VfD. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot type articles Edit

Episodes that feature a character/series crossover
Episodes that feature a disease as a plot element
Episodes that feature a shuttle crash
Episodes that feature a supernatural/omnipotent being or powers
  • To start off with, we already voted to delete similar pages last September, look here. Aside from that, the names are all wrong. They are all dead end pages, with no links going in or coming out (except the coinciding Reference tables addition). In fact, they are essentially blank, with the exception of the subsection headlines. As it currently stands, and as we've decided once before, they have no place here.--Alan del Beccio 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. --From Andoria with Love 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I kind of liked the idea, but precedent has been set, so delete all of them. Jaz 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006Edit

T'Lak Edit

This article already exists as Talok. A google search seems to confirm that T'Lak is not a Trek name or at least a spelling even used to associate with this character, whereas the latter finds multiple confirmed results. --Alan del Beccio 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/Merge Content I agree that T'Lak should go, however T'Lak has a lot more information than Talak. If you're going to get rid of T'Lak, at least bring some of the information from it over to Talak.

The Infobox Text / Template:Infobox Film / SFM Edit

The Infobox Text & Template:Infobox Film 
Created by an anonymous contributor who, I think, isn't yet completely aware of the wiki functionality (already gave him a welcome message). The template seems to be copied from Wikipedia, the other page had a wrong call of that template plus some other strange links. I guess both could be delete as "user tests". -- Cid Highwind 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both.
Another one from the same constributor mentioned above. --From Andoria with Love 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted this one, it was clearly spam. --Alan del Beccio 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SFM is still around and kicking. Delete it, says I. — THOR =/\= 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Expanded Universe Edit

27 January 2006Edit

The Rock redirectEdit

Duane Johnson ... is spelled Dwayne Johnson, which should be a redirect to The Rock as he was credited as --KenKeeler -- Postfach

I've merged the histories under "The Rock" and deleted the unnecessary redirect.--Tim Thomason 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Babel categories Edit

...are: en-N, en-4, en-3, en-2, en-1, en-0, de-N, de-4, de-3, de-2, de-1, de-0, es-N, es-4, es-3, es-2, es-1, fr-N, fr-3, fr-2, fr-1, it-2, it-1, nl-1 --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I was going to create the remaining Babel templates and categories, but then I thought to myself... How many of these categories will actually have people in them? Like some other things, I don't think Memory Alpha needs categories for each level of a language, simply because we don't have that many people and with a language like, say, Italian, I don't think there's a need for five categories. I'm posting this here rather than Ten Forward because I don't want to turn this into another "Was that a formal vote?" situation like the Duty Roster. So, I'm nominating all categories on Memory Alpha:Babel, outside the "User it", "User sv", etc, for deletion. The only exception should be English, which should be standard but not necessarily native. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree (delete) - let's have one category per language, listing all editors who actually speak that language at any level, but not 5 categories each. The english categories are not suggested for deletion here, but even they might be trimmed down IMO. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem trimming the Babel model -- the form i created it in was designed to reproduce the more extensive MA/de and Wikipedia versions, but i agree that for MA's size and activity, it might not be necessary to sort them in the current form. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Wow. Um... yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Could you post which links you specifically want deleted? --Alan del Beccio 20:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I voted to have all those categories listed above be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The Vedek mentioned all categories outside "User xx", obviously referring to all subcategories from "xx-0" to "xx-N" with "xx" being any one of the existing language shortcuts. I still agree with that. A user either speaks a language (=is in the main category for that language) or he doesn't (=is not in the main category). For further details and to not break the existing templates on user pages, we should keep all templates, at least for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 20:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I really don't want to list them all, but basically anything listed on Memory Alpha:Babel under categories outside "en", "es", etc... so Category:User en-N, Category:User en-4, etc, which is what Cid said. I take back what I originally said about keeping English separated, but I do like having the templates at the different levels. It's just the categories that seem redundant, considering anyone under the five categories for a given language is already in that languages main category. I've adjusted the English templates to remove the extra categories and I think it looks fine. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the categories, keep the templates --Memory 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I vote to delete the extra categories. Could we perhaps, include the main language category link ("Users who speak Spanish" or whatever) with the extra templates?--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

If the links at the top of this subject are the ones up for deletion, I suggest people delink their user pages from them, as only 4 or 5 are actually orphaned links. --Alan del Beccio 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the above are category links, which should only be used in the Babel templates. We seem to have consensus to delete the categories, so it's the template pages that need to be checked. The templates no longer contain the category links. User pages are still listed there, because the pages need to be edited once to remove that internal information. I will use the bot to "touch" all user pages - after that, all categories listed above should be empty. -- Cid Highwind 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bio-genevesium Edit

Not cited and does not link anywhere. Also, a Google search did not find a single reference to this term, so it looks as though it is an imaginary term. Either that, or misspelled. --From Andoria with Love 17:21, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Its simply mis-spelt... its actually Bio-Genovesium. Should be moved, now I've added some more information, and that a picture has been added. Zsingaya Talk 19:50, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. Delete mis-spelled redirect. --From Andoria with Love 02:45, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has a source cited...the picture. -- Krevaner 12:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • You are of course aware that it's been redirected, right? In any case, this is now a vote to delete the redirect, which in any case will likely be deleted since it's misspelled. :-P --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Vaadwaur history Edit

The pna discussion on the talk page seems to point toward a consensus that this one should be merged with the Vaadwaur species page so I thought I'd just get the process going. Logan 5 03:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Both pages seem to be short enough to be merged instead of kept separate. I agree with merge/keep redirect. I also just created a new template to suggest such merges in the future, see and comment on MA:TF ("Misplaced merge suggestions"). -- Cid Highwind 21:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Jaz 01:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Dogbreathcanada 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Starchild |<Talk> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota & Mississippi River Edit

Mississippi River and Minnesota 
No known Trek relevance. This was created along with Minnesota; however the latter had been previously deleted due to having no direct Trek relevance, so it qualified as an immediate delete. Strike that, the Minnesota page has been created again, so I must bring that up for deletion as well. Again, it was previously deleted for having no direct Trek content (see the discussion here), so by all rights and reasons, it should be deleted immediately, but I will place it here to appease the user who created it and prevent a deletion/creation/edit war. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Arachnid nebulaEdit

Arachnid nebula
Unintentional duplicate of Arachnid Nebula. I've tried to merge any relevant or useful content from the former into the latter. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 20:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • A simple merge of histories is all that was needed. I went ahead and did so, although I probably should have waited until it was discussed further here. Oh, well! :P --From Andoria with Love 21:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Class 5 nebulaEdit

Class 5 nebula
While worthy speculation, I don't believe the McAllister Nebula was ever explicitly referred to as "class 5" and I can't find any other reference to this classification. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 21:01, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

* The only possible support is in the name "McAllister C5"...but that's pretty flimsy, IMOCapt. Christopher Donovan 06:11, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Planets that haven't been mentioned on Star Trek Edit

Pentarus I, Pentarus IV, Pollux I, Pollux II, Pollux III
Pollux V (added Jan 21)
  • Delete all --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From the article, it seems as if Pollux V was mentioned in passing. If so, keep that one. Definitely delete all planets that weren't mentioned directly. -- Cid Highwind 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Pollux V WAS mentioned in the episode (in the first line of the episode actually), so of course keep this one. Kennelly 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Q history Edit

from talk pageEdit

pna -- this page is pretty sad, I'm not even sure there is enough information available to support it. Either way, it hasn't been touched since 1 Sep 2004, which is almost a year now. It either needs to be fixed or kicked off the island. --Alan del Beccio 06:36, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It gets worse, most of the information here is clearly wrong. The new era didn't begin 10,000 years ago. That is when the Q stopped talking to each other and the two Q the article began with hided at the beginning of the universe, not the milky way galaxy. --Janusi


This page could be merged with the Q(species) page and this page deleted. --Galaxy001 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It doesn't even need to be merged, there's nothing there that isn't on the Q species page. Jaz 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's no new info on there to merge. --Starchild |<Talk> 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

13 January 2006Edit

MA:DR & Memory Alpha:DREdit


The last discussion regarding this was moved to Memory_Alpha:Ten_Forward#Shortcut_links because we were still discussing the use of shortcut links in general. With that out of the way, we can now go back to discuss the deletion of this one. I'm not moving this discussion back here, because some opinions might have changed, or were based on the assumption that all shortcuts should be deleted. Please vote again. To clarify, this should be deleted, because the page it is supposed to link to, Memory Alpha:Duty Roster, was under discussion, moved to another title, and might or might not moved back to that title in the future. Meanwhile, we shouldn't have shortcuts for pages that do not exist. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:DREdit

Memory Alpha:DR
As above. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane deltaEdit

Cochrane delta
Not canon. Might be from one of the novels, though, and as such could be trimmed down and added to the background section of that article. As a separate article, delete. Addition: It's Federation (novel), information was just added to that article. -- Cid Highwind 19:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The Dauphin (TNG episode)Edit

The Dauphin (TNG episode) 
Redirect; was created to catch link from Wikipedia article. I instead changed the Wikipedia page to link to the correct article title here - I guess that's the preferred way of doing things... -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - There may also be other, similar redirects within M/A as well, might have to spot those at some point as well. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete away.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Memory Beta Edit

Memory Beta 
The assumption seems logical, but it is still an assumption. With no "original" information (not counting the fact that there are facilities with similar names) and probably no one ever linking to or searching for it, I simply don't see the sense of this. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I moved the reference to part of a non-canon article, Memory Beta was mentioned in "Memory Prime". deletion is likely for the redirect. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

8 January 2006Edit

Various templatesEdit


no deletion consensus; please continue discussion on Template talk:Meta


Unneccessary, images are either {{image paramount}} or {{image copyright}}, attribution can become wrong if new images are uploaded. For further reasoning, see template talk page. -- Cid Highwind 17:59, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
From Ten ForwardEdit

I was looking at File:William Riker, 2063 - on the Phoenix.jpg, and found that it had both the {{image paramount}} and {{image copyright}} boilerplate messages. The former states:

The copyright of this image belongs to Paramount Pictures. Its use is contended to be consistent with fair use rules under United States copyright law. See Copyrights.

Whereas the latter states:

This image is copyrighted. It is used here with the explicit permission of the owner, Section 31. The terms of permission do not include third-party use (Image source: ).

These seem contradictory to me. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the person was intending to state that the image belongs to Paramount Pictures, but the file itself was procured from a source other than the uploader (namely, Section 31). Obviously, both Paramount & Section 31 cannot both own the image.

I guess my question should be that, in addition to {{image paramount}} and {{image copyright}}, should we have one that indicates that the image file itself has an original source that differs from the individual who uploaded it.

Or I could just be way off-base. — THOR =/\= 15:41, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the first one says it all and the the source should not matter -- in terms of screen caps, if Paramount owns it. The second one, which I'm not sure everyone is necessarily aware of, is for artwork that doesnt fall under the first template, such as Captainmikes rank insignia images and such. Either we go by that or we limit our caps, as I have suggested before (when we had our first wave of Trekpulse images come in), to user-capped images only. We already know that Jorg has pretty much every image on file that this site will ever need, not to mention the fact that I own nearly half of the DVDs, which I too can cap, as well as another half a dozen members here who have similar capabilities; I really dont think we can use the excuse that we don't have the resources from within, so why bother snatching images from other websites and making up yet another boiler plate to justify covering a non-contributors screen cap, that someone else can upload over with an original user-contributed screen cap the next day? --Alan del Beccio 17:26, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The copyright ownership has always been Paramount. It is a matter of courtesy to attribute the image to the person who capped it, but the ownership remains Paramount's. Perhaps we could use the normal {{image paramount}} for all Paramount owned material (all screencaps and publicity photos), and the {{image copyright}} for any image that belongs to someone else.
If we are still interested in attribution to section 31, trekpulse, and others, we could create a separate, second boilerplate stating they capped the image -- although the copyright, and the right to sell the image was never theirs, they simply circulate it in a fair use manner, as we do. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:44, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, was something as a courtesy saying something to the effect of:
This image is not the product of a Memory Alpha contributor, but rather it was provided for use here by Section 31.
THOR =/\= 18:53, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
In what I'm sure is going to prove to be a prime example of overenthusiasm, I created what I was discussing above in the {{imageprovided}} template. Subsequently, I have also updated File:Riker on phoenix.jpg by both removing the {{image copyright}} template, and adding the new one. Input? — THOR =/\= 19:57, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Having received no input in favour for, or in opposition to the new template, I have continued to use it. However, as I have included the template with the indention already, I have not been manually indenting it when amending image description pages. However, I'm also not indenting {{image paramount}} anymore; iirc there was a comment made some time back about the possibility of adding the indention inside the {{image paramount}} template, and configuring a bot to make the adjustments to the pages which already indent it.
Is this something I imagined, or should we just leave the {{image paramount}} template as it is, and just continue to add an indention when utilizing it? — THOR =/\= 05:45, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
{{image paramount}} is currently being fixed. In the future, please use it without manual indentation, just like this one. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
From Template talk:ImageprovidedEdit

I was just starting to update this template, when I had second thoughts... Should we really have this message (whether used as a template or manually) on the image description page? Images might change (better screenshots, clipping, other frames, completely other scenes matching the image description, ...). In all these cases, such an attribution might become outdated. I think we should remove this template, and in the future use additional attribution just in the edit summary, but not on the page itself. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree in terms of it becoming outdated. Last week I replaced numerous images that referenced Trekpulse (which was a dead link anyway and needs to be removed from all images, solely for that fact) with my own caps. Frankly, between myself and Jorg, we could replace these images with "original" contributor uploaded images rather easily. I would almost rather suggest we establish a list in the requested pictures of images to replace (if we deem it necessary to do) rather than create a new template. --Alan del Beccio 17:29, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • In my opinion {{image paramount}} should be used when the source of the screenshot in question is from Paramount, being it episode, movie or poster screenshot/scans. Everything else should be {{image copyright}} where it concerns fan made images etc. Using a seperate message template to mention where the screenshot came from is not necessary. If people want they can include this in the image description. This way you also prevent dead-links. -- Q 17:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Great, seems as if we agree on that. I will add this template on MA:Vfd, please leave your comments there, too. Alan, can you perhaps already take care of some of the nine images using this template at the moment? -- Cid Highwind 17:56, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I cannot, however, in the near future I can replace 4 of those with no problem. --Alan del Beccio 18:49, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated redirectsEdit

Note:With our policy to no longer simply delete redirects, I think it makes sense to at least have an own section for redirects here, perhaps even an own deletion page later.


Template moved to more verbose {{Hosts of Dax}}, all template links edited. -- Cid Highwind 22:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Template moved to more verbose {{Dominion War battles}}, all template links edited. -- Cid Highwind 22:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)


As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)


As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)


As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The SunspotsEdit

  • The Sunspots. Should be deleted. It doesn't matter if its a band made up of former cast members, it is not trek related. Jaz 08:49, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete: It's been deleted before, and consensus was to "move" it to the actor's articles. I think we should simply delete it now, as the information should already be on the actors' articles.--Tim Thomason 09:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Since it's been deleted before, it qualified as an immediate delete. Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 11:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

8 January 2006Edit

String TheoryEdit

[String Theory]

Evidently stemmed from a red link in the space article...there is no Trek content to it, no citation, nor does it appear to have any other pages linked to it that might suggest there could be a citation for it somewhere. --Alan del Beccio 05:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, and remove the blasted reference from the space artcle. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the heretical text.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete, then replace as Mike suggests (eh, suggested... maybe just delete, then ;)). Even with the recent additions, this article has no apparent Trek relevancy, and on top of that would need a serious rewrite (POV, formatting, factual accuracy) if kept. -- Cid Highwind 15:28, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • The original contributor blanked the article, i presupposed this was a deletion request, howeever he has not responded to my talk. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dax's gossip columnEdit

Dax's gossip column 
Evidently somebody's poor attempt at humor, it's also told in the wrong perspective. This probably qualifies for an immediate deletion, but having had no sleep for the past, oh, 27 hours, what do I know? :-P --From Andoria with Love 16:07, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I suppose it could be merged into the pages of the individuals referenced on the page. I'll do it if I find time. --Alan del Beccio 18:24, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • delete I don't understand the problem with linking to those four articles -- perhaps the archivist thought they werent allowed to add Manwaring and Strek articles? They seem valid to me, but archivists really have to be bold in updating pages (<--click the link) and add the citations themselves. Since Strek and Manwaring et al. were mentioned in a valid resource, a canon episode, there's no problem with creating new articles for them and listing them as Starfleet personnel, Deep Space 9 personnel, Starfleet lieutenants, etc etc. The comment in the article seems to indicate the contributor thought that Strek wasn't important enough to have his own article, but he was (?) mentioned on the show, so theres no problem (is there?)-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete and salvage any useful content. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

String Theory (Physics) Edit

String Theory (Physics)
Same as before--Alan del Beccio 18:14, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggested this be moved to a background secton -- perhaps we can merge with an article that deals heavily with string theory (such as a "references" section of Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory or a "background" section of graviton or subatomic particle. I suggested this already to the original contributor, but he seems to have his hands full trying to understand the wiki structure right now and chose to recreate the article even though i suggested not to. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
    • i've moved this to [[subatomic physics]], which i feel might be a valid area of expansion. portions not mentioned on Star Trek must be kept in a background section, according to our manual of style -- please click on the link to read the manual of style, and also the naming conventions -- to understand why topics not mentioned on Star Trek should not have articles named after them, and should always have non-Star trek related data in "background" subsections. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • I have merged the article with Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory, the actual article shall be deleted
    • Looks like we both worked on this -- i moved the article anyway. Perhaps the novel version could be shortened, and both versions kept (altough the edition in [[subatomic physics]] still needs formatting -- we should probably only list points about string theory there that would lead to a link to an article that already exists. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

26 Edit

26 - Incorrect information (Only Deep Space 9 has 26 hour days as we know), and personal note background information. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would think this would actually qualify as an inaccurate delete, since it doesn't contain any meaningful (or accurate) content. --From Andoria with Love 05:15, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)