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.
I'm not particularly sure this article is needed. However, if it must stay, it needs some serious clean-up as well as more references. But, like I said, I don't think this page is needed so what it may need is deletion. Anyone got any ideas? --From Andoria with Love 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well I realise I am only a Trek fan etc. but I would have thought we needed an article to collect all of the myriad references to in-jokes that the Trek universe contains... There are a lot of in-jokes, a lot of fans like them, and if non-Trek online collections even list them, I thought Memory Alpha would need a page on them.
- I am a new contributor to Memory Alpha but I already find it a little bizarre that fundamental Trek articles about subjects (such as IN-JOKES) that actual Trek creators reference repeatedly don't exist, but fractured English articles containing pseudo-science run two to three pages... --Goldfish 2099 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did only I say I don't think the page is needed... ;) --From Andoria with Love 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think a dictionary-like entry explaining what exactly an "in-joke" is can be considered a "fundamental Trek article". Shran is right, if this is supposed to stay, it needs work. However, I don't think we need an extensive list of all possible in-jokes, because we already add them to individual articles (where appropriate) as background notes. We shouldn't outright delete this article, either, but really think about its usefulness in whatever form... -- Cid Highwind 13:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess first of all, the main thrust of MA is supposed to be that of an in-universe, canon encyclopedia, so that would explain why there are so many relatively long pseudo-scientific articles (but not explain the fractured English, which we don't encourage and some of us actively work to eliminate). Secondly, even though the focus is on in-universe subjects, there is still room for articles from the production, or real-world POV (there are plenty of those here, too, as can be see by the rather ubiquitous "realworld" template on many pages). I guess it really boils down to having a balance, with the balance rather weighted in favor of the in-universe articles. -- Renegade54 13:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- ME am to being writing all science articles now! -- Captain M.K.B. 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)