Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Cerebusian rejuvenator".
- If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
- If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
- If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
Deletion rationale Edit
The process was never given a formal name in the episode, "Cerebusian rejuvenator" seems a made up (and seemingly misspelled) term. -- Capricorn 20:13, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Checking the script quickly I didn't see this term in there; this seems to be a made-up term.--31dot 20:16, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
- That's helpful, but where did they get it? If they just made it up themselves that isn't much different than a fan making it up. If they got it from Trek staff/materials, then we might have something.--31dot 23:57, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
- That page also cites the wrong episode ("The Royale", instead of "Too Short a Season").--31dot 00:00, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
- We'll never know what their source it. It may've been a prop note that didn't go into the script, or something in the original treatment. -- sulfur 00:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
- If we can't establish where they got it, I'm not convinced that we should use it, unless we use them as the source for other names. If they can't get the episode the reference comes from right, I'm not sure we should use them.--31dot 00:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with the episode's article. The fact that the official website has a name for this is noteworthy, but ST.com is still non-canon, and the citation mix up isn't helping. - Archduk3 00:18, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Admin resolution Edit
Deleted.--31dot 15:02, October 8, 2011 (UTC)