This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Eugene's Limit".

  • 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 admin 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 phrase "Eugene's Limit" was actually never used in the episode that is being referenced in the article. I think the term is derived from the TNGTM, and if you have a look at the article history, the initial article never claimed any on-screen reference - this has been added later. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

Talk pageEdit

From wikipediaEdit

Having a particular interest in some of the alien propulsion technologies depicted on TNG and VOY, I wondered why none of the [Star Trek] related sites, such as Memory Alpha, had any information on Eugene's Limit, a measure that deals with the concept of Warp 10.

I originally posted this article on Wikipedia, and I've transferred the information here for further discussion or, at the very least, so that Memory Alpha has a definition for the term.

This information is not copyrighted and should not be removed for such reasoning. A similar definition can be found on a number of related sites. Eugene's Limit is an accepted term in reference to Star Trek and is no different than other words such as phaser and photon torpedo. Again, do not be so rude as to delete this article without verifying the facts. This information and definition is NOT copyrighted, and the originating web-site is referenced as an external link.

Alas, it is non-canon, no matter how accepted it is in fandom or whether or not it appeared in the Tech Manual. The content might be shortened and then added to the Tech Manual pape or the Warp drive article, it can't be kept as it is though (possibly only as a redirect). --Jörg 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-Canon? Edit

Eugene's Limit is not only a tribute to the creator of Star Trek, but it's been mentioned on various Trek-based biography programs featured on the Space Channel, A&E and Discovery. Eugene's Limit is also detailed in the official TNG technical manual and, that alone, makes it part of the Star Trek universe. Wikipedia has also accepted the article as a valid canon article. If it's a tribute to the maker of this astounding franchise, a valid term used on countless television programs devoted to Star Trek, and given a profile in the official technical manual, it's canon. Furthermore, this term is broadly accepted by the people that make Star Trek a franchise - the fans. Some people may not put too much into "fandom" but it's fans that perpetuates the story and pushes for more of what they want. Indeed, this article should be featured on Memory Alpha and accepted as canon for the strong aforesaid reasons. If anyone disagrees further, it would be most appropriate to take an administrative vote (admins from this site) before downgrading this article. Please look at the facts and broad acceptance of this term before simply dismissing it.

Sorry, but we don't do votes on the "canonicity" of individual articles. We have a binding "Canon policy", because that is the only way to manage an encyclopedia consisting of several thousand articles, claiming to be accurate. As far as I'm aware, the term "Eugene's limit" itself has never been used in any episode - which means that it shouldn't get an own in-universe article. I do, however, recognize it as the term that was used in the TNG Technical Manual to describe the Warp 10 barrier (both in-universe and as a comment by Rick Sternbach describing how Roddenberry decided that Warp 10 should be the new maximum). It might be best to merge this article to a background section at the article "Warp 10", but reduce the current content somewhat. The resulting redirect from this article title could eventually be kept. -- Cid Highwind 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If necessary under aforesaid reasoning, please assist with appropriate changes Edit

I understand the last user's remarks and reasoning regarding Eugene's Limit never being mentioned in an actual episode of any of the franchise's incarnates. For the record, this term does indeed deserve its own article, on Star Trek's premier wiki-site Memory Alpha, if for nothing less than being a genuine tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the creator of all that is trek canon. Quite honestly, I believe it's the only term in "trekdom" that invokes Gene's name directly. What's the harm of letting this term remain as an article; certainly not server memory capacity. Even Wikipedia has allowed the article to stand as a genuine term used in Star Trek, but perhaps Memory Alpha's standards are more stringent. I wonder what Majel Barrett would think of Memory Alpha's decision to exclude this term, a term that honors someone she loved very much. If you won't keep this article intact for Gene himself, do it for Majel and all the fans that feel Gene deserves this small honor on the internet's largest trek site. If it was called anything else, it wouldn't be as important but this term was invented in the first place as an honor to Gene. Let's honor him on Memory Alpha, just as Wikipedia has already done, and let this article stand.

However, if my argument to include this term as a main article has failed, then I would ask for assistance in shortening, then moving the article to the technical manual section as another peer mentioned herein. There's not really useless information, in my view, to be eliminated and it would seem logical that most people would enjoy the slighty longer version that now stands. If an admin wants to make these changes, then I would ask that such a task fall on that admin. Thank you.

As for the site's "binding canon policy", technically speaking, despite not being mentioned on an episode of the show itself, it meets every other required guideline. Further, perhaps honoring Gene with his own term (in the form of an article) might be an exception to the rule. Without Gene, none of this would be here today. Gene is canon, hands-down.

This whole site is a tribute to Gene and his work. You can also see that here or here (all the people named in his honor). There is also Thomas Eugene Paris and Wesley Crusher. I suggest bringing this up at Memory Beta where there it shouldn't be a problem at all including the info. Here, on MA, this article will be "treated" just as Cid suggested. --Jörg 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jörg and Cid Edit

Jörg, I appreciate your candor about your feelings regarding this term, Eugene's Limit. And, just as you surely have for a time, I've watched and followed Star Trek for 29 years - since I was 5 years old. I realize this entire site is a tribute to Gene as is many other "acceptable" terms on this site. Jörg, I also appreciate any assistance you can give in terms of putting Cid's suggestion into motion, just as you supported in your last post. I am most grateful.

My effort to include this article at Memory Alpha was never intended to be a detrimental item to this site, and certainly did not, in my opinion, act in a disrespectful manner, that is unless it's now considered "disrespectful" to offer a valid debate. I accept the site admin's decision and the terms of your binding canon policy. As an accredited journalist, I certainly did not expect to be told simply to offer my works to a competing site, Memory Beta; in essence being told to, shall we say, take my opinions somewhere else. That's not professional and it's less than democratic or considerate, Jörg. I already indicated in my prior post that I'm willing to accept the decision based on site rules, and I certainly don't need your input as to what site's might accept my work.

Cid, thanks for your candid explanation about why my Eugene's Limit article must be modified and moved as per the site's binding canon policy. I also thank you for at least allowing some debate on the issue.

I am pleased that it will remain, albeit in a smaller capacity, on this site in a modified form, and in its full version form on the more recognized Wikipedia site. If you Google it, my Wikipedia article comes up, as does various additional documents on the subject, so aside from this particular site, the term will be and remain valid trek canon by the show's producers, creators (if you include Majel Barrett), and the fans. It's also my notion that other significant trek sites and forums, as well as other definition related sites, will accept this term as canon and such a notion will indeed be reflected in broad-based search engine results for the foreseeable future.

Thanks again for all your time, patience and considerations.

Who are you? 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As a point of reference, Memory Beta is by no means a competing site. Rather, they are a complementary site, a sister site, if you will. While MA covers only canon Trek material (and as pointed out previously, has a rather simple but strict definition of canonicity), MB covers all the non-canon licensed material. I don't think Jörg meant any disrespect, as we point archivists to MB fairly frequently (and occasionally edit there ourselves). If we can't use the material here because of our charter, often MB or the Star Trek Expanded Universe (another sister site) can use it. -- Renegade54 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Edit

This page has been deleted as per our deletion policy. The page was previously created in 2004, subsequently nominated for deletion. Consensus suggested it be deleted, and it was. As per policy, any recreation of that article results in immediate deletion for the page. See the original deletion nomination "here". --From Andoria with Love 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

Non-canon. Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)