Memory Alpha
Register
Advertisement
Memory Alpha

Template:Vfd


Beatrice Arthur

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)

Euthanasia

Euthanasia
  • Maybe it is a valid article, but the subject is already covered in Suicide. --TOSrules 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)-- (unsigned, also, no vote?)
  • If Euthanasia is covered in Suicide it shouldn't be. Suicide is the voluntary killing of one's self; Euthanasia is a "mercy killing" of another (even if requested by the person being killed). I'm not commenting on whether it merits its own article, but they are very, very different concepts. Aholland 13:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed with your comments, keeep both. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since this is a vote, could everyone please sign their comments with four tildes (~~~~) and actually enter a valid vote: keep the page in question, delete the page in question, abstain from voting or remain neutral in making a comment, or some other suggestion such as merge, rename, etc.. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that euthanasia and suicide are two different topics about death, and if the latter is valid, then so is the former. Keep. (On the side, perhaps a death article would be a nice way to tie together related terms, like kill, Star Trek deaths, etc.) - Intricated 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia, also know as Assisted Suicide, is not Suicide? Delete --TOSrules 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge/redirect. --From Andoria with Love 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Suicide. I agree with TOSrules, except about TOS ruling. --Bp 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, euthanasia is mentioned in Terra Prime (re: Colonel Green Euthanizing victims of the war). Jaz talk | novelsFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 21:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, keep if we're going to cover the topic of euthanasia. I'm the one who added the bit about Vulcans even though I wasn't sure if that was the correct word (hence adding a pna-cite with it), but I do know they said "euthanize" in reference to Colonel Green. Additionally, in Voyager's first season, "Emanations" featured a culture where people were pressured into being euthanized. It's just not appropriate to have it on suicide --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So we are going to have 2 articles on suicide, one for all forms of Suicides except Assisted suicide, then one for Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide). --TOSrules 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, Euthanasia is not "assisted suicide". The denotative definition of euthanasia is "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy". By contrast, "assisted suicide" is the practice of helping an individual who has decided to kill himself, usually because he is unable to physically perform the deed. In the former, the person killing decides it is best to kill; in the latter the person being killed decides it is best to die. They are related only in that death is the end result. Mixing the two in a single article that isn't entitled "Death" is simply definitionally wrong. Aholland 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Mr. Holland -- "euthanasia" is a completely separate topic from "suicide".. trying to break "euthanasia" down into a subtopic of "suicide" seems like an ill fit. Suicide is killing yourself and euthanasia is someone else killing another, but not always by request (therefore "assisted suicide" would be a misnomer as synonymous to "euthanasia", since not all "assisted suicides" are "euthanasia" -- and many forms of "euthanasia" do not involve requests or assistance). My vote remains to keep both articles without crossing them over unless an individual case warrants inclusion in both topics. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia is Suicide when it is a choice of the person doing it, and murder when it is not. In that respects, if someone says, "please kill me to stop my suffering" that is a type of Suicide. --TOSrules 06:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Euthanasia, which talks about (for example) Hitler's euthanasia programs, and I think you'll understand why there is not a clear distinction between "murder" and "suicide", which is why this term exists. The existence of nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia should be enough to show that. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazar

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)

Service section, Habitat module, modular spacecraft, Monopropellant

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 | novelsFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 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)

Several articles with "novel" information

Since I'm about to leave for the weekend right now, I'll just post this as a reminder. Feel free to change this into a list of articles, or handle each case individually. Anyway, several articles (for example 0) were just created/edited by User:61.69.188.244, others will probably follow. Non-canon "novel" information needs to be removed from all of them, by either rolling back', deletion or merging with the article about the novel. -- Cid Highwind 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles have all been dealt with or moved accordingly. The redirects 0 and (*) should be deleted. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Efrosian

Efrosian
OK, let now me be the one to prove a point (and I'll just suggest this one page for the time being - this still is a serious deletion suggestion, though)... After doing a 180 on the canon policy, this page title is no longer supported by anything. It is not from any of the resources listed as valid, but rather is from a resource specifically mentioned in the current policy as being "invalid" (namely, a FASA Role Playing Game sourcebook) and eventually from one with "unclear validity". As such, this article needs to be rewritten to remove the phrase "Efrosian" from every non-background section, then merged with one of the existing "unnamed aliens" pages. The non-canonical page title could then be kept as a redirect to that page, according to recent discussions on MA:TF. -- Cid Highwind 22:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep name has been confirmed to originate from background material -- Kobi - (Talk) 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sometimes you have to let something slide for the sake of sanity... --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Read the talk page. Jaz talk | novelsFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as currently written. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. And Aholland, please do not use this space as a soapbox - it was not deleted under the old policy, because we would have voted on it, and the dispute between the two of us has no place here at any rate. --Broik 00:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a very close call about which I've written lots. Cid's suggestion of putting Efrosian into the "unnamed aliens" article with a redirect from Efrosian was my original thought as well. There was absolutely nothing to support the name other than momentum and a general consensus that the name was a nice one. The question - I think - is whether or not there is a publicity photo from the time of Star Trek IV that captions a photo of the white-haired alien as an "Efrosian". If such a photo exists that would be a "Restricted Validity Resource" under current policy as it would be "Background information from the production staff". That being so, the section on creation of an article using that name would be allowed if:
  1. "There is no conflict with a valid resource." No conflict exists.
  2. "The resource was created by the applicable production staff during the creation of the Movies or the Episodes of the relevant series." True; publicity photos are created by production staff.
  3. "Due to its nature it is highly likely that, had the need in an Episode or Movie required use of information similar to the resource, the resource would have been explicitly used, without significant change, in the Episode or Movie." Obviously a judgment call, but I think it passes.
  4. "The resource is a minor point in the Trek Universe (e.g., the birthplace or homeworld name of a character; not storylines or script ideas)." This is very minor.
  5. "Use of the resource was not intentionally avoided by the production staff (e.g., use of the resource was filmed and then edited out; the resource was first in and then removed from scripts)." There is nothing to show intentional avoidance.
The problem is that we have never seen the photo. Mel Efros' son assured me in a private conversation that such a photo did exist at one point, though. So it comes down to whether we accept someone's word that the evidence exists without the ability to independently review the evidence. If yes, then the article should stand per policy; if no then it should be redirected as proposed. I can live either way, but if absolutely forced to side one way or the other I would vote to keep with the current citation description in the article as I believe that Efros' son has no motivation to be other than fully truthful about it.
(By the way, if the policy were actually reverted to the pre-February state as User: Broik keeps trying to independently do, the answer would have to be delete as that version does not recognize the production resource - no vote required.) Aholland 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Advertisement