Memory Alpha
Register
Memory Alpha
No edit summary
(→‎Discussion: country specific discussion)
Tags: VE apiedit
Line 59: Line 59:
   
 
:''From [[User talk:Lakenheath72]]:''
 
:''From [[User talk:Lakenheath72]]:''
:Lake, you are probably right. What you are seeing is personal. I discovered this a few years ago and will share it with you now. There is a circle of about 5-6 major editors, with an outer circle of about ten to fifteen more, who rule Memory Alpha with an iron fist. These editors have been on Memory Alpha from the very beginning and some of them have been editing non-stop on MA for literally over the past decade. You can not and will no succeed if you go against such persons. If they want an article deleted - it will be deleted. If they want an article written a particular way - it will be written that way. I learned this and moved on. I now have a Master's Degree and write professional published books and papers and only show up on MA rarely. The site has just become too polarized and is clearly run by an elite cadre of editors. Learn this now and avoid many headaches and battles later. Best wishes! -Fleet Captain
+
:Lake, you are probably right. What you are seeing is personal. I discovered this a few years ago and will share it with you now. There is a circle of about 5-6 major editors, with an outer circle of about ten to fifteen more, who rule Memory Alpha with an iron fist. These editors have been on Memory Alpha from the very beginning and some of them have been editing non-stop on MA for literally over the past decade. You can not and will not succeed if you go against such persons. If they want an article deleted - it will be deleted. If they want an article written a particular way - it will be written that way. I learned this and moved on. I now have a Master's Degree and write professional published books and papers and only show up on MA rarely. The site has just become too polarized and is clearly run by an elite cadre of editors. Learn this now and avoid many headaches and battles later. Best wishes! -Fleet Captain
   
 
A piece of advice (from [[User talk:Archduk3]]:)
 
A piece of advice (from [[User talk:Archduk3]]:)
Line 144: Line 144:
   
 
*'''07:49 February 7, 2015''' Writes a deletion rationale paragraph.
 
*'''07:49 February 7, 2015''' Writes a deletion rationale paragraph.
** Sentence 3 of his paragraph reads: '''The [[MA:RESOURCE|resource policy]] states that production and reference materials "''...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the '''most relevant''' one.''"'''
+
** Sentence 3 of his paragraph reads: '''The [[MA:RESOURCE|resource policy]] states that production and reference materials "''...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the '''''<nowiki/>''most relevant''' one.'''''<nowiki/>'''"'''
 
** Actual text of above sentence (which is a paragraph) reads: '''Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the ''most relevant'' one. For example, include information about [[Spock]]'s species on the page for [[Vulcan]]s, and not in every article that mentions Spock.'''
 
** Actual text of above sentence (which is a paragraph) reads: '''Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the ''most relevant'' one. For example, include information about [[Spock]]'s species on the page for [[Vulcan]]s, and not in every article that mentions Spock.'''
   
Line 157: Line 157:
 
''Secondary research information could deal with a valid resource, yet be derived from another resource. Verifiable information about a "''Star Trek'' universe" resource that can be added to an article body (for example, a name or spelling from a script, but not included in filming; or a registry number detailed to a model at the time of filming but not visible in the final product).''
 
''Secondary research information could deal with a valid resource, yet be derived from another resource. Verifiable information about a "''Star Trek'' universe" resource that can be added to an article body (for example, a name or spelling from a script, but not included in filming; or a registry number detailed to a model at the time of filming but not visible in the final product).''
   
''In accordance with the {{ma|canon policy}}, secondary research cannot be cited as a ''valid resource'' &ndash; it should be added in the "background" section of the article, after the valid resource it pertains to is cited properly. For example:
+
''In accordance with the {{ma|canon policy}}, secondary research cannot be cited as a ''valid resource'' &ndash; it should be added in the "background" section of the article, after the valid resource it pertains to is cited properly. For example:''
 
: The ship's dedication plaque specified that it was an ''Oberth''-class vessel. ({{TNG|The Naked Now}})
 
: The ship's dedication plaque specified that it was an ''Oberth''-class vessel. ({{TNG|The Naked Now}})
 
{{bginfo|The information about class and registry wasn't directly visible in the episode, but a closer examination of the plaque was included in ''[[Starlog (magazine)|Starlog]]'' issue #XX, where the background art was published.}}
 
{{bginfo|The information about class and registry wasn't directly visible in the episode, but a closer examination of the plaque was included in ''[[Starlog (magazine)|Starlog]]'' issue #XX, where the background art was published.}}
  +
''<nowiki/>''
''
 
''::The valid resource is the episode, "The Naked Now", but the secondary research that gives us the information is a print of the set artwork, which is not perceivable from viewing the episode, but is part of the actual production material used in filming.
+
''::The valid resource is the episode, "The Naked Now", but the secondary research that gives us the information is a print of the set artwork, which is not perceivable from viewing the episode, but is part of the actual production material used in filming.''
  +
''<nowiki/>''
''
 
''::If the resource being cited is not part of a Paramount production (for example, a photo published instead by a member of the production staff), then a link to some aspect of that resource should be included.
+
''::If the resource being cited is not part of a Paramount production (for example, a photo published instead by a member of the production staff), then a link to some aspect of that resource should be included.''
  +
''<nowiki/>''
''
 
'': The starship had three ports on its starboard side. ({{TNG|Gambit, Part I}})
+
'': The starship had three ports on its starboard side. ({{TNG|Gambit, Part I}})''
{{bginfo|The information about the ship isn't visible in the episode, but is derived from a photograph taken of the filming model by [http://memory-alpha.org This Reputable Website's Owner].}}''
+
{{bginfo|The information about the ship isn't visible in the episode, but is derived from a photograph taken of the filming model by [http://memory-alpha.org This Reputable Website's Owner].}}''<nowiki/>''
   
 
However, the policy was changed by Archduk3 in 2013, so the matter of visibility was no longer valid. One of his lines in Reference works created by non-production staff states, ''Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life.'' Captainmike spoke about the ability of the viewer to read the text, and Archduk3 spoke about the ability of the viewer to see an object. Under Captainmike's definition, there could be no articles based on the map. Under Archduk3's definition, there could be articles based on the map for it was seen by the viewer. By expanding the definition, as he did in the deletion rationale paragraph, many more items are now subject to the sight test.
 
However, the policy was changed by Archduk3 in 2013, so the matter of visibility was no longer valid. One of his lines in Reference works created by non-production staff states, ''Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life.'' Captainmike spoke about the ability of the viewer to read the text, and Archduk3 spoke about the ability of the viewer to see an object. Under Captainmike's definition, there could be no articles based on the map. Under Archduk3's definition, there could be articles based on the map for it was seen by the viewer. By expanding the definition, as he did in the deletion rationale paragraph, many more items are now subject to the sight test.
Line 197: Line 197:
   
 
:::Well, I ''did'' read that whole rambling incoherent block of text, and the rest of the page, and I don't count any idiots, only a single overtly insecure editor. -- [[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] ([[User talk:Capricorn|talk]]) 02:15, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
 
:::Well, I ''did'' read that whole rambling incoherent block of text, and the rest of the page, and I don't count any idiots, only a single overtly insecure editor. -- [[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] ([[User talk:Capricorn|talk]]) 02:15, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
=== Follow-up (Country by Country) ===
  +
  +
I have to admit I've lost track about what is being said up above :-) but it doesn't seem to be about the deletion discussion. Back to topic, I've reviewed the list of countries more carefully and came up with this list based on strong and weak keeps versus those which should be deleted. I think its clear a blanket deletion is not the best idea.
  +
  +
'''STRONG KEEP'''
  +
* [[Mongolia]]: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries listed. Parent country for [[Outer Mongolia]], mentioned in an episode.
  +
* [[Kazakhstan]]: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries. The [[Baikonur Cosmodrome]] is located there
  +
* [[Libya]]: Mentioned in Arabic in Assignment Earth, specifically "Libya on alert"
  +
* [[Midway Island]]: Heavy background information, referencing the Battle of Midway upon which a number of Starfleet vessels are named. Also links to a military awards article (Navy expeditionary medal). Due to the work on the B-ground section and that a name is visible on the Cage Map if magnified, the article should be kept.
  +
  +
'''MEDIUM KEEP'''
  +
* [[Saudi Arabia]]: Fairly visible on Cage map. Line is Arabic or Farsi states "divisions moving towards Arabia" in Assignment Earth.
  +
* [[Sudan]]: Fairly visible on the Cage Map with a readable name.
  +
* [[Point Barrow]]: Fairly visible on the Cage Map. One of the only cities shown in Alaska, after [[Fairbanks]]. Referenced in the main [[Alaska]] article.
  +
  +
'''WEAK KEEP'''
  +
* [[Korea]]: Korean service medal shown in Tomorrow is Yesterday. Graphical enhancement shows the name Korea and Seoul on the Cage map.
  +
* [[Bering Strait]]: I think this was mentioned in Star Trek IV. If not, merge with [[Bering Sea]].
  +
  +
'''DELETE'''
  +
The remainder of the countries and regions are either too small to read either under enhancement or not mentioned or referenced in any way except on the Cage Map. There are a few cities and islands which were extrapolated - those should go for sure. Also remove all capitols from country articles unless they are spoken of or visible on a map.
  +
  +
Thank you all. Nice to see everyone again - [[User:FleetCaptain]] (8 Feb)
   
 
== Admin resolution ==
 
== Admin resolution ==

Revision as of 02:25, 9 February 2015

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete the pages listed in the rationale.

  • 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

  • Mongolia
  • Algeria
  • Sudan
  • Argentina
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Indonesia
  • Libya
  • Chad
  • Niger
  • Angola
  • Mali
  • Information added to a number of other pages.
  • Point Barrow
  • Midway Island
  • Fairbanks
  • Wake Island
  • Gulf of Alaska
  • Yukon River
  • Aleutian Islands
  • Bering Strait
  • Seattle
  • Bristol Bay
  • Hokkaido
  • Honshu
  • Kyushu

Much like cities only referenced on these maps, which were deleted awhile ago, there is no relevance to Star Trek in this real world information beyond that a map of the world was used briefly at one point in a remastered episode. While that is relevant to Earth, map, and the background section on Antarctica (since the real map was changed in only that regard), it is not a good reason to reference it on/make an article for all 194 countries that will be in the real world map that was used. The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one." Common sense says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that the subject of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The rest of the information is only coincidentally shown/used. - Archduk3 07:49, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • KEEP: They did appear in the show, so technically they are canon. In regards to Saudi Arabia, a long time ago (several years) there was a discussion about the radio jabber Uhura hears as the warhead is descending uncontrollably in "Assignment Earth". In one of the foreign languages, someone apparently says "Libya" and "Arabia". In addition Kazakhstan and Mongolia should definitely be kept since they are large enough to have names visible on the map and are referenced in other trek shows (Outer Mongolia and Baikonur Cosmodrome). On the flip side, I do think a country should not be listed unless someone has gone to the trouble of zooming in on the map and showing the actual name, as was the case with Sudan and Korea. I vote keep and even expand if needed. -User:FleetCaptain 7 Feb 15

I think this is personal. I have a checkered history on this website and I might have created enemies along the way. Why do I think that it is personal? Let us take two example, Mongolia and Sudan. These pages were created by FleetCaptain. Between 2008 and 2014, the admins Gvsualan, Archduk3, Cleanse, and 31dot were involved in the evolution of one or both of these pages. By the time, I entered the scene, the pages were nearly identical. If there was any problem with their relevance, there was three or four times in which the pages could have been marked for deletion. They weren't. I found a page that listed the countries from largest to smallest. I realized that for small countries, they simply wouldn't be visible. Then I wrote the article so that the reader would know where the country was located, its capital, and where it was seen. (In hindsight, I could have dropped the information about the capital. It wasn't needed.) In the background section, I included information on the map with a link to it. If I could find the country on the older maps, I would include that information, with the relevant maps, in the same section. Never did I intend to do all countries, for some countries are incredibly small and would never appear on the screen. Within a day, instead of fixing the page, Archduk3 put up these articles for deletion. Archduk3, in my talk page, made reference to a page that had been deleted in the past and how I had circumvented procedure when I rewrote the page. I think, as a demonstration of his power and his displeasure, he marked pages I had worked on for deletion. This was done during or after he had blocked me out for an hour. Lakenheath72 (talk) 19:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Archduk. This seems no different that the situation with the cities and would be no different than saying that since the Earth has appeared in canon that any geographic feature on the Earth should get a page. 31dot (talk) 00:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
From User talk:Lakenheath72:
Lake, you are probably right. What you are seeing is personal. I discovered this a few years ago and will share it with you now. There is a circle of about 5-6 major editors, with an outer circle of about ten to fifteen more, who rule Memory Alpha with an iron fist. These editors have been on Memory Alpha from the very beginning and some of them have been editing non-stop on MA for literally over the past decade. You can not and will not succeed if you go against such persons. If they want an article deleted - it will be deleted. If they want an article written a particular way - it will be written that way. I learned this and moved on. I now have a Master's Degree and write professional published books and papers and only show up on MA rarely. The site has just become too polarized and is clearly run by an elite cadre of editors. Learn this now and avoid many headaches and battles later. Best wishes! -Fleet Captain

A piece of advice (from User talk:Archduk3:)

Don't ever link to a page which can be used to defeat your argument, if your intention is to win the argument.

It's up to Lake if wants to pursue this, but we really should put the above comment back on his talk page where it belongs. That was general advice about MA (which I stand by) and really has no bearing at all on this deletion discussion and the merits of keeping the country articles. -Fleet Captain

You wrote, The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one."

When you included a paragraph from the resource policy, you deliberately altered it. The paragraph reads, Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock. By altering the paragraph, you altered its intention, so that it would suit your needs. The text, in layman English, says, don't copy the paragraph from a reference source. Say it in your own words and include the information in an appendix of the most relevant page.

By altering the text, you placed all production and reference materials under the same category. This would equate to an user being unable to make an article based on an Okudagram, a dedication plaque, or even the map seen in "Storm Front". These are all production works and all are subject to deletion. That is not what the section is referring to; it is referrring to a smaller subsection of production and reference material.

According to that same resource policy, as the map was seen in the episode, it doesn't fall under the fourth category of reference works created by non-production staff. The resource policy says, Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life. Now, if that map was not seen in the episode, I would not be allowed to write about any portion of the map in the main text of the work. Instead, that material would have to be mentioned in an appendix, and in the most relevant article. To give an example, from another part of Memory Alpha. There is an article about Bekka. Bekka was from a name tag attached to an uniform; the name tag wasn't seen in the film. So, this article should be placed for deletion. Information about this character would have to be placed in an appendix in the most relevant article. I don't know what that is right now. There is nothing against writing articles for portions of the map seen in "The Cage".

This is why you should never ever link to a page, and altered the text from that page, for any intelligent person can discern that you are bending the rules to your favor. He or she will think you are being petulant and are abusing your admin powers to make a point. So, next time, you want to make a point, and CYA, never link to a page. Most people will not bother to find or even read the resource policy. It's buried deep in Memory Alpha.

As for common sense, it is a subjective thing. There is no universal common sense. I have read the common sense policy. It says nothing about the map. It includes a link to common sense at Wikipedia, where it is treated as a topic in epistemology. (In philosophy, this is the theory of knowledge.) People have been debating philosophy for thousands of years, and our civilization is no closer to a consensus on any topic discussed in philosophy. You have your common sense, I have mine. It is ludicrous to expect me to share your common sense. I have learned that concepts like common sense, virtue, vice, and other philosophical topics are abstract. I am not an abstract thinker. I am a concrete thinker.

I can understand one point from that common sense page, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to make a point. When you take the steps to mark a page for deletion, when you block a user for an hour, you are being disruptive to Memory Alpha. Why did you do that? Because I wrote a page that had been deleted. Well, I can do that, for I can ignore a rule if I think that I am improving the site. That is in the common sense rules, and on the main Wikipedia page.

Again, if you are making a point about not ignoring consensus, why would you include a link to a page that says I can ignore a rule if I believe that my action will work to the betterment of the wikia? Again, CYA by not including the link.

You may not like articles about cities and countries from the maps. There is nothing against it in the rules. If I want to write articles about everything on the maps, the rules say I can. If you had never made the links, then I wouldn't be at liberty to say that.Lakenheath72 (talk) 09:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. In this case, there is also a previously agreed to consensus that such pages are not appropriate. It would be like saying that every geographic feature of the Earth should get a page because the Earth has been seen in canon. Having many duplicate pages that say the same thing(X appeared on a map) and only that thing harms the information as it makes it harder to find.
Archduk had every right to block you; you created the disruption, he ended it. Despite what you are told on your userpage by a disgruntled editor, there is no "elite" group here. If you don't like the previously agreed to consensus, you need to convince those already here to change their mind. This is the case on any wiki project, especially Wikipedia(with potentially hundreds of thousands to convince)31dot (talk) 12:05, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe in conspiracies; however, when I hear a person described as "disgruntled", I am more inclined to believe there might be a grain of truth in what the individual is saying. That word has been used by corporations, governments, and other organizations in the past to discredit an individual. In a number of cases, it has been found that the individual did have valuable insight into what was happening and felt that others needed to know. They were vindicated in the public arena. I am not saying that this will happen with FleetCaptain. What I am saying is that using that word has increased the probability that I will be more weary of you and the other admins.

As well, I do believe that individuals will alter or interpret documents in such a way that it will suit their needs. Archdu3 changed the words of the text to meet his needs. He has broadened the scope of what was discussed on that page to include all production material and reference material. Before it was limited to materials that existed outside the scope of the episodes and films. With his alteration, he has added things that are within the scope of the episodes and films. This includes Okudagrams, dedication plaques, and other props and/or graphics made specifically for Star Trek. The lack of correction on your part strongly implied that you are in agreement with him. By expanding the scope of this rule, a precedent has been set. A deletion procedure for these items may not occur today or tomorrow; however, it doesn't rule out the possibiity that it may happen in the future. I don't feel that an assurance that this won't happen will assuage my concerns. (There happens to be a fairly large number of pages that fall into the duplicate pages that say the same thing; I constantly see an admin doing a "copy+edit" on the wikia activities page. Alone, I can think of the pages that I made for the German map that meet this barest of criteria. If the admins were sincere about ending the scourge of duplicate pages, they would mark those pages for deletion and the admin who does the "copy+edit" would be told to stop that nonsense.)

The rules governing wikias are open to interpretation. The wikia says that a person can ignore a rule for improvement or maintenance. There was no mention of a consensus. (Hell, I don't remember reading anything about any thing called a consensus in the rules. It's probably buried deep in that manual or the idea was formed after the manual was written.) This page on the main Wikia page linked directly to the common sense page which linked to the page about it on the main Wikia site. Common sense falls into the category of epistemological items (the theory of knowledge). Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. If they can't reach a consensus, how am I, a non-philosopher, expected to know what is common sense? I know how to act civil - be respectful, listen to others, don't steal, etc. I don't know how to act common sensical. That is above my station.

My point to Archdu3 was this, don't weaken your argument by making links to pages that can be used against you. Keep that stuff unknowable. Not many people will bother with those pages as they are buried deep in Memory Alpha. And, unlike a real manual, there is no index. Either you know where things are or you don't. It takes considerable effort to find anything. I know, for it took me hours to wade through the whole thing. I am determined and focused; others will be less so. I think he estimated that I wouldn't bother with the whole clicking the link business and reading the pages. I think he thought he was more intelligent than me. He underestimated me. I have an intelligent mind; I can see what he is doing. I don't need to believe in conspiracies or the words of a "disgruntled editor" to know that someone is asserting his dominance and control and is attempting to put me in my place.Lakenheath72 (talk) 13:37, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

And I don't need to read a large wall of text to know that you would rather tell us how brilliant you are and we should just bow down and accept what you are doing than work with those here to either understand why things are the way they are, or to convince us that what you want is better. I will restate this since you don't seem to address it: You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. If everyone just ignored the rules when they wanted, rules would have no meaning whatsoever. We all have ideas about what would be improvements, but we must work with each other. 31dot (talk) 14:36, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss the Cities resolution. The resolution was, 'Deleted' as not visible in canon. If it is later possible to see these or other similar places(through Blu-ray, for example) these can be restored. They weren't deleted because they were duplicate pages; they were deleted because they were unreadable to the people who bothered to write an opinion. We could debate the merit of many pages on this wikipedia which were created after the issue of visibility was solved, either because high definition improved clarity or another source was available that had the material. If we go by the new resolution, many pages on this wikipedia would have to be deep-sixed.

Let's talk about ignoring the rule. The full section for Common Sense reads,

Memory Alpha has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.

Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (for example, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to prove a point). The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter.

Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the RADAR, and not be noticed at all.

The person who wrote that last line had little respect or love for your beloved consensus. They were advising the reader to be a pro at "immproving" the wiki, so that the community and, especially, the admins wouldn't know that changes had been made. Improving is such an open word isn't, it? One person's improvment is another person's vandalism. So, from its inception, this wikipedia had a clause which was against community awareness and participation.

Oh, if you can't be bothered in reading my posts, then keep your "mouth" zipped. I am not of the culture that texts their messages. I am of an older generation where people actually knew how to write complete paragraphs and didn't communicate in 150 letters or less because of space limitations.Lakenheath72 (talk) 16:33, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'm hardly texting here, but being concise is helpful, too. And I won't keep quiet any more than you will. I guess the rest of us should all just go home and let Lakenheath72 take over, since they know all about this place. 31dot (talk) 16:41, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, in the radio chatter from "Assignment Earth", I confirmed that one of the voices says "Libya on alert" and another says "Divisions moving towards Arabia". The most predominate language is Arabic; Farsi can also be heard. -FleetCaptain

comment: or actually two comments, one relevant to the substance of the discussion, and one about the tone:
first of all; I think this should depend on the conclusions reached in the previous discussion, and I feel that discussion hinged on Jörgs comment that those blobs of text at least needed to be able to be conclusively confirmed to be what one thinks they are, without the help of a source map as a legend. So, it hasn't really come up yet, but is that the case for these articles? Are they based on how it is clear on the bluray images that what one may think the labels say are indeed what they say? If so, the articles should stay. If not, they should be deleted.
Or at least if they were not clearly mentioned otherwise as Fleetcaptain suggests. If that's true then at least those few articles have my keep vote for they were as clearly mentioned as anything else.
And regarding the specific criticism that if the Earth was seen every distinguishable feature should get an article, I think there's a crucial difference between things that were recognisably labeled, and things that were not. It's the difference between places being specifically featured, or the producers just wanting to feature "the Earth".
Secondly, here comes the harsh infighting critique: the only person I saw make things personal here was Lakenhearst, boldened by Fleet Captain. Although others were dragged down to this level because they felt the need to respond. The notion that just because you are disgruntled, people must be out to get him is completely nuts. This is about just not getting the essence of certain guideline, and then descending into paranoia while trying to understand what is going on. It's dangerous to discuss things on anything else but merrit, and on that count I feel Lakenhearst has derailed this discussion. The attacks on the validity of even having policy just because he finds it hard to get a handle on, the subsequent attempted to get his win through populist arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion, and the deeply cynical advise (a gotcha-moment which only exists in the writer's mind, written with an oh-so-misguided air of smug moral superiority) on which links his perceived opponent shouldn't mention as to better suit their perceived agenda, are simply beyond the pale.
Regarding the specific allegation that longstanding articles were targeted only after Lakenhearst started touching them. Well, editing a page just makes it visible on the recent edit page, which might invite further scrutiny, even from people that hadn't realised there was a problem before. As unfortunate as it may be, pages that shouldn't exist keep existing for a long time all the time. I for one edit pages I'm not completely sure should exist all the time; as long as they aren't brought up for deletion and then voted out it's my mission as a Memory Alpha editor to improve them. I also know that I end up fixing stuff in articles Lakenheath touched more then the work of any other editor, for no more sinister reason then that his edits show up on my watchlist a lot. If I were a lot more paranoid I might also suspect that Sulfur had it in for me, because they keep fixing spelling mistakes I made. But I don't, I know Sulfur just specialises in correcting exactly the type of errors I make a lot. VOY: "The Voyager Conspiracy" seems relevant here, you can examine page histories and edit patterns so closely that you may arrive at out of touch conclusions. There's an axiom that puts it more harshly then I would but still merits mentioning : Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:04, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Here's a timeline:

  • In 2006, articles were created based on the maps from "The Cage". These pages were selected for deletion by 31dot. The partipants in this discussion were 31dot, Airtram3, Mordor, Jorg, and Capricorn. Five people. The issue was that they weren't readable. The resolution was that these pages should be deleted as they weren't visible. If they became visible in high definition, then they should be restored. (A new map was introduced in "The Cage".)
  • In 2008, the first of these country articles appeared. They were written by FleetCaptain. Over the next seven years, they were edited by the admins. Using the history of these articles, I can see the evolution of these articles. Before I began work on them, they were duplicate pages. The instigator for this deletion process, Archduk3, was an editor in 2010 and 2011 for Belize, Guatemala, Algeria, Mongolia, Sudan, Kazakhstan, and Ethiopia.
  • In 2015, I was working on the cities mentioned in "The Neutral Zone". I get a short message from User47: Stop (it was a link to the long buried cities discussion). Then, I worked on the countries. During the process, I rewrote a page that had been previously deleted, and I rewrote the Osama bin Laden page.

I have Safari browser. I can highlight a word or set of words so I can look up the word. This is the definition of Osama Bin Laden.

    • Dictionary definition: Osama, bin Laden. (1957-2011), Islamic militant, born in Saudi Arabia. He was regarded as the founder of Al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the attacks, he went into hiding, but was tracked down and killed by US special forces in Pakistan.
  • 06:37 February 7, 2015 One Hour Block for Lakenheath 72. (Circumventing a deletion consensus.)
  • 06:44 February 7, 2015 My talk page gets this message.

Stop. - User47 (talk) 03:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't a suggestion, you are circumventing the deletion policy by adding material previously "deleted." The consensus must be changed first. Also, you've going to have to explain where the information you've added to Osama Bin Laden was in the episode, because if it's not it shouldn't have been added. - Archduk3 06:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

  • 07:15 to 07:22 February 7, 2015 Archduk3 adds 12 pages to the deletion process and reverts Osama Bin Laden to 31dot's version.
  • 07:49 February 7, 2015 Writes a deletion rationale paragraph.
    • Sentence 3 of his paragraph reads: The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one."
    • Actual text of above sentence (which is a paragraph) reads: Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock.

What are these texts? Reference works by production staff, Material used day-to-day by production staff, Other information derived from production staff, and Reference works created by non-production staff. These materials were listed under supplementary resources. According to the rules, information from these resources belongs in an appendix, or as a background note.

By altering the paragraph for his deletion rationale, he has changed what has been the policy since 2013. According to the history page, Archduk3 moved page User:Archduk3/Canon to Memory Alpha:Resource policy without leaving a redirect: merging. The words he changed in his deletion rationale are the words he wrote for himself on his page and then made policy.

By altering the paragraph, he has now included both valid and supplementary information.

I have examined the history of this page. In 2006, when the cities discussion was held, the issue of visibility was discussed in the resource page. From 2006 to 2013, the policy was,

Secondary research information could deal with a valid resource, yet be derived from another resource. Verifiable information about a "Star Trek universe" resource that can be added to an article body (for example, a name or spelling from a script, but not included in filming; or a registry number detailed to a model at the time of filming but not visible in the final product).

In accordance with the canon policy, secondary research cannot be cited as a valid resource – it should be added in the "background" section of the article, after the valid resource it pertains to is cited properly. For example:

The ship's dedication plaque specified that it was an Oberth-class vessel. (TNG: "The Naked Now")
The information about class and registry wasn't directly visible in the episode, but a closer examination of the plaque was included in Starlog issue #XX, where the background art was published.

::The valid resource is the episode, "The Naked Now", but the secondary research that gives us the information is a print of the set artwork, which is not perceivable from viewing the episode, but is part of the actual production material used in filming. ::If the resource being cited is not part of a Paramount production (for example, a photo published instead by a member of the production staff), then a link to some aspect of that resource should be included. : The starship had three ports on its starboard side. (TNG: "Gambit, Part I")

The information about the ship isn't visible in the episode, but is derived from a photograph taken of the filming model by This Reputable Website's Owner.

However, the policy was changed by Archduk3 in 2013, so the matter of visibility was no longer valid. One of his lines in Reference works created by non-production staff states, Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life. Captainmike spoke about the ability of the viewer to read the text, and Archduk3 spoke about the ability of the viewer to see an object. Under Captainmike's definition, there could be no articles based on the map. Under Archduk3's definition, there could be articles based on the map for it was seen by the viewer. By expanding the definition, as he did in the deletion rationale paragraph, many more items are now subject to the sight test.

    • Sentence 4 of his paragraph reads: Common sense says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that the subject of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The text of Common Sense is above; there is no mention of a map.
  • 02:33 February 8, 2015. I received an e-mail from FleetCaptain on my talkpage. I didn't pay much attention to it, and I didn't respond to it.
  • 09:14 February 8, 2015. I sent a post to Archduk3, which is posted above. I have learned that people are idiots when it comes to technology. Instead of being an idiot, be smart about how you use technology. Use it to your advantage. Hypothetically, if I was Archduk3, I would not have made links to those pages for I didn't want my rationale undermined and have questions raised about what I am doing. I would have said words to the effect of, this information is located here. Most people would have been discouraged from investigating the matter, and accept at face value what the admin is saying.

31dot, who had been to my talk page, responded. There is ongoing discussion. Archduk3 moves the discussion to this page. (I don't know what the custom is in your country, Capricorn. In my country, corporations and governments use psychological warfare against former employees. One of the terms used is "disgruntled employee". It is used to discredit the employee.)

  • 17:25 February 8, 2015. Archduk3 moves the post from FleetCaptain from my talkpage to this page. 31dot thinks that I agree with FleetCaptain; I don't. By moving the post, he has moved the post out of its context and has "posioned the well".

My point about common sense is that it is a philosophical concept, with its origins dating back to Aristotle. Philosophy is abstract thinking; some individuals are abstract thinkers and can understand what common sense means. They can debate the various theories of common sense with other like-minded people. Then there are people like me who are concrete thinkers. I am incapable of compreheding common sense. It is not a negative to say this. The architecture of each peron's brains is unique, and how this architecture is shaped and how it works is created by the software in our genes (the epigene).Lakenheath72 (talk) 00:03, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Did you really need 10,000+ characters to say whatever it is you are trying to say above? These sorts of posts are bordering on disruptive, as is calling Archduk an idiot. I'm not even really sure what it is you are trying to say. 31dot (talk) 00:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with you not having common sense, but why you would then weight in on a discussion that hinges on a common sense policy, and expect to be taken serious baffles me. And furthermore, your whole analysis still hinges on the very dubious assumption that all those facts are best explained by the fact that people are out to get you. You're implying Archduk3 is an idiot for not bringing the principles of psychological warfare to this wiki well enough (that is, you atribute anything you can to malice, and dismiss anything pointing against malice as incompetence). You've done a great job completely derailing this discussion. You've not voted, and you've brought no argument except ad hominem ones. Are we to surmise you're acting in bad faith too, trying to answer psychological warfare in kind? -- Capricorn (talk) 01:07, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think 31dot is capable of reading what what I wrote. I think he is clouded by his disdain for FleetCaptain. I don't know what happen between them; I don't care. I do know that 31dot read FleetCaptain's post on my talkpage, before he responded. You think I am the only one who is taking this personal. What about this comment from 31dot - And I don't need to read a large wall of text to know that you would rather tell us how brilliant you are and we should just bow down and accept what you are doing than work with those here to either understand why things are the way they are, or to convince us that what you want is better. This is bloody well personal.

The common sense page was written by Renegade64. The last sentence of that page can be used as a weapon of mass destruction against the community, or consensus, by an editor with a vendetta. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the RADAR, and not be noticed at all. If an editor has the desire and the know-how, they can stealthy undermined the illusion that there is a community here. The Memory Alpha Resource is written so as to discourage investigation. This isn't about common sense; this is about being a member of a community. How do we behave in a community? That is called civility. (Common sense is defined as, "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters". What is good? Who defines what is good? What is sound? Who defines what is sound?) This is about reforming the rules and how rules are altered for an agenda.

There are many idiots on this page. (FleetCaptain doesn't count in this discussion; he has been discredited by 31dot.)

  • Archduk3, who doesn't know how to use technology to his advantage. Then he uses the nuclear option - he says that he wants to clear the mess, so what does he do? He removes a private correspondence from an user's talk page and places it on a public discussion page, and he moves an entire discussion on his page to the public arena.
  • Capricorn, who is easily duped by Archduk3's maneuvers
  • 31dot, who is indoctrinated in psychological warfare and raised the credibility of a post by FleetCaptain by calling him a "disgruntled editor", and is ignorant of his own rules
  • Me, the biggest idiot, for taking on a battle wagon named 31dot. Where is the other battle wagon? Where is Archduk3?Lakenheath72 (talk) 02:03, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I did read that whole rambling incoherent block of text, and the rest of the page, and I don't count any idiots, only a single overtly insecure editor. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:15, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up (Country by Country)

I have to admit I've lost track about what is being said up above :-) but it doesn't seem to be about the deletion discussion. Back to topic, I've reviewed the list of countries more carefully and came up with this list based on strong and weak keeps versus those which should be deleted. I think its clear a blanket deletion is not the best idea.

STRONG KEEP

  • Mongolia: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries listed. Parent country for Outer Mongolia, mentioned in an episode.
  • Kazakhstan: Clearly visible on the Cage Map, one of the larger countries. The Baikonur Cosmodrome is located there
  • Libya: Mentioned in Arabic in Assignment Earth, specifically "Libya on alert"
  • Midway Island: Heavy background information, referencing the Battle of Midway upon which a number of Starfleet vessels are named. Also links to a military awards article (Navy expeditionary medal). Due to the work on the B-ground section and that a name is visible on the Cage Map if magnified, the article should be kept.

MEDIUM KEEP

  • Saudi Arabia: Fairly visible on Cage map. Line is Arabic or Farsi states "divisions moving towards Arabia" in Assignment Earth.
  • Sudan: Fairly visible on the Cage Map with a readable name.
  • Point Barrow: Fairly visible on the Cage Map. One of the only cities shown in Alaska, after Fairbanks. Referenced in the main Alaska article.

WEAK KEEP

  • Korea: Korean service medal shown in Tomorrow is Yesterday. Graphical enhancement shows the name Korea and Seoul on the Cage map.
  • Bering Strait: I think this was mentioned in Star Trek IV. If not, merge with Bering Sea.

DELETE The remainder of the countries and regions are either too small to read either under enhancement or not mentioned or referenced in any way except on the Cage Map. There are a few cities and islands which were extrapolated - those should go for sure. Also remove all capitols from country articles unless they are spoken of or visible on a map.

Thank you all. Nice to see everyone again - User:FleetCaptain (8 Feb)

Admin resolution