Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Microgravity

< Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Revision as of 19:21, December 14, 2010 by SulfBot (Talk | contribs)

39,343pages on
this wiki

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Microgravity".

  • 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

I really think this is going too far. We can't just divine information from a patch other than what was clearly visible on the patch. These patch related pages should all be merged into one page with a single statement. Seriously. It would be like creating an article for Neville Isdell because he happened to be president of Coca Cola at the time when the crew of the Enterprise went back in time to rescue the whales and we happen to see that can of diet coke in the fridge. That's how related all these patch articles are. It's getting ridiculous. — Morder 09:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Yes, this "circumstantial canon" thing is just not enough. If we had an on-screen reference to "microgravity", we could eventually keep the rest as background info - but without, delete. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've felt for some time now that the information "gleaned" (or inferred) from these patches has gotten way out of control. How do we know that in the Trek universe the "Schirra" on a mission patch was Wally Schirra, and not, say, Wilber Schirra (or even Wilma Schirra)? We studiously avoid extrapolating everywhere else, so why are we doing it here? Yes, those are actual NASA mission patches, and yes, the writers, etc. were implying a continuity between the NX program and past (real-world) space missions, but none of that extraneous information was on-screen or in dialogue. This whole mess is ridiculous, in my opinion... there's no way we can justify a Teacher in Space Project article, or most of the others, from what's on those patches.</rant> -- Renegade54 13:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record there is a Microgravity lab referenced in ENT: "Cogenitor". (All that's stated is that Calla works in it though) — Morder 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. – Tom 14:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a problem gentlemen. Let's take a simple case. There is a picture of an elder man in the time stream seen in Shockwave giving an oath. The author writes this is Ronald Reagan taking the oath of office. Using your argument, Renegade54, since this man is not named in the canon and Star Trek history is different from our history, this man may not not even be Ronald Reagan. So, do we write a fictional article identifying this man, tying him to canon, or do we dismiss what we see? Do we really want to scour this site for all articles which are so thinly connected to the canon? There are many more examples - Norman Schwarzkopf, Bush 41, World Trade Center, DC-3, P-51 Mustang, Chevrolet Corvette, so on, so on. I kept to the canon and to precedent. My advice is this, the real world has intruded into the canonical world, and our job is to simply record them. If the reader wants to read more, we direct them to an outside resource.– Airtram3 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In principle, I agree. I've never felt entirely comfortable with those extrapolations, either. But in those cases, we at least have a photo of the person or object in question. Yes, the picture could be of Richard Reagan rather than Ronald Reagan, but there's a photo. Here, we're extrapolating large amounts of information from a background photo of a mission patch, typically with only last names and a mission number or name. This several steps beyond even the information taken from the Enterprise opening sequence pictures, in my opinion. Where do we stop, then? Do we play seven degrees with this? -- Renegade54 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In addition most of the patches couldn't even be clearly seen on screen. — Morder 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Morder, do we really want to open that can of worms? I think personally that most of you would be happy if Star Trek was a radio play where there were no visuals, and what you had to work with was said by the actors. I have requested all references and articles related to patches deleted. I will do my part, you do your part. End of line.– Airtram3 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my name is Morder not Mordor. We're making assumptions about what the patches are since they are clearly not visible enough to make out any data. They represent realworld items that we happen to know the contents of and therefore you referenced that real world data to make your statements. I'm not saying you were wrong in doing, its just that you're adding more information than what is required for this site. Microgravity was not seen on the mission patch. You could say that anything any apollo mission/sts missions actually did are canon. Like repairing the hubble space telescope. That action is not canon and neither is the sts experiences in microgravity. — Morder 14:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very different to mention that Ronald Reagan existed based on a photo than to provide an entire history of the Space Shuttles based on an illegible patch. Most TV shows assume a certain basic level of knowledge when watching it. I don't think the history or technical information of a space capsule or space shuttle counts. If the articles just mentioned that it existed and was seen on a patch, we probably wouldn't be here. Delete.--31dot 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are "levels" of assumption going on here... Assuming we see an image of Kennedy:

  • First level would be to not create an article at Dude talking to some audience, but in fact create the article at John F. Kennedy.
  • Second level would be to create an article for Lee Harvey Oswald, because he shot Kennedy in the real world, so probably in the Trek universe as well.
  • Third level would be to create an article about Jack Ruby, because that guy shot Oswald - rinse, repeat.

The articles created get more and more irrelevant to Trek, as the "assumption chain" gets longer. It has to stop at some point, and IMO, this point is pretty early on! -- Cid Highwind 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the list of space shuttle missions article to include links for the Teacher in Space Project with STS-51L and Micro-g environment with STS-107 in the annotations. The articles in question can be deleted. (This is not an attempt at understanding any of the opinions or declarations of the members on this site; rather, this is to chart a course for my ship out of this storm.)– Airtram3 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not simply make an attempt to understand what canon is? — Morder 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Canon is defined as that which is mentioned or seen in the live productions. This is the definition given by Paramount. I have adhered to this policy to my detriment. Too often, canon is based not an objective basis, but a subjective basis. My philosophy is simple - if it's in the filmed works, and can be verified as coming from such a source, then it is canon. Period. Teacher in Space is canon. Micro-gravity is canon. It may not be hard canon, but it is canon. However, I am fighting a storm of opinionsf not from the members, but the moderators and administrators who have each an agenda and a vision for this site. I am not a moderator, so my abilities are very limited. All of my entries are tier 1. They may be need some tweaking to make them more canon. I did this with the list of Apollo mission snd space shuttle missions. Instead of trying to help me get better, too often people are rushing for the delete button when the entry is somehow anathema to their vision of the website. Renegade54 admitted as much when he responded to one of my responses. How can I understand canon when canon itself is subject to ehe vagaries of opinion? End of line.– Airtram3 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If you say so. I'm sorry you don't see what's particularly non-canon about Microgravity - it was outlined above why it doesn't meet canon specifications. I am also not an administrator for the record. Good luck. — Morder 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You, Airtram3, seem to be the one with the problem here. I fail to see how I admitted anything of the sort in any of my responses to you, either on this page, or my talk page. I was accused of being a fascist for stating an opinion. You seem to be reading something between the lines. If I'm wrong in what I'm saying, please, someone point it out. Morder, Cid, 31dot... anyone? -- Renegade54 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't really be having any discussion not related to whether we need a microgravity article or not. From the patch shown here, I see the "mg" that is apparently the canon source for microgravity. That and the "microgravity lab" referenced, makes me think we could have a background reference under microgravity lab (I'm not sure, yet, if we need a page on microgravity itself).
The other discussion has no bearing here (and just help hide or smother the legitimate, page-deletion discussion), and would be better placed at talk pages, forum posts, et cetera.--Tim Thomason 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Renegade was not wrong to do what he did. He is not promoting his own personal vision of this site, but promoting what established policies are.
Back to the deletion discussion, it could be merged with gravity, since all microgravity is is a miniscule level of gravitational force.--31dot 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin resolution

Deleting as too-many-times-removed from canon, as it was based on a patch barely seen.--31dot 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki