Missing references Edit

Merge Edit

Same thing. - Archduk3 22:36, May 26, 2011 (UTC) This is a specific course that is being taught at Starfleet Academy. We are not talking general space walking here or extravehicular activity; this is a specific 6 week course taught at the Academy and since we do have a list and category even of just courses taught at the academy, it would be inappropriate to lump it together with the general concept of ..."extravehicular activity." Distantlycharmed 22:40, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
If it's a course, it should be all capitalized I think. And it should link to the EVA article. -- sulfur 22:41, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
It is a course and I am not sure what you mean with capitalized. None of the other courses on the list of Starfleet academy courses are capitalized. Distantlycharmed 22:46, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

"You dropped out too soon. In the third year there's a six week course of actual spacewalks so you can get used to them." That doesn't sound like there's a course called space walk, but that there is a course with space walks. - Archduk3 22:54, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, he does say "spacewalk" and secondly, that doesnt change anything about the fact that there is a specific kind of course being taught at the academy (a 6 weeks course) to train students in space walking; that should be distinguished from the general concept of walking in space - which "extravehicular activity" here is. It is very clear that Paris is referring to a specific 6 week course. Distantlycharmed 23:01, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

There is a unnamed course taught at the academy with 6 weeks of space walks, not a 6 week course called space walk, there's a difference. For that matter though, EVA should be merged here, since there only seem to be script references to it, making "space walk" the only term used on screen. - Archduk3 23:06, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

If he had said "they teach you walking in space at the academy" I could see the merger making sense. But he gives an actual length for the course (6 weeks) and says that it is being taught in the third year. Lumping this together with the general concept of space walking (extravehicular activity) is misleading and not very precise because it does not distinguish the course from the general concept. The info on the EV page is not applicable to here because this is just a course at the Academy, while the EV article mentions various incidences throughout the Trek world with regard to walking in space. The time frame, the 6 weeks, Paris notes really does make it very clear that it is a specific course he is talking and not some general activity you embark on while in Starfleet Academy. He even says "in the third year" which suggests that it is part of the/a curriculum. Distantlycharmed 23:13, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a 6 week course called space walk at the academy, no. Is there a 6 week course of space walks, yes. It's simple reading/English comprehension to see the difference, so you either can't, or are so interested in having this article with a title derived from speculation be only about the unnamed course that you won't. Either way, since you're only reiterating the same points over and over again, despite the fact they do nothing to explain how you got "In the third year there's a six week course called space walk..." from "In the third year there's a six week course of actual space walks...", it seems pointless to keep pointing out the difference to you. Anyone else want to chime in on this? - Archduk3 23:39, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing. I feel like i am talking to the skeptics who despite birth certificate still insist that Obama is not a natural born US citizen. Amazing, just amazing. So Archduke, if your only point of contention is the naming of the article as opposed to the fact that there is an actual course, then that can be fixed. Very easy. Name it "space walks" if it makes you feel better. My whole point, which you just dont get, is that we need to distinguish between a specific course at the academy and the general concept of space walking. Get it? Fact is that there is a 6 week course on spacewalking/spacewalks/space walk at Starfleet Academy that is being taught in the third year. I used "space walk" because for lack of an actual course catalog listing; it is the closest info in canon we have on the course. Just like we call Neelix's drink "Even better than coffee substitute" even though that is not the real name of the beverage; it was just never uttered on screen so we take what we can. You try to erroneously lump this 6 week course at the academy together with the general concept of space walking by merging the article. How much clearer than "6 weeks course in the third year at the academy" do you want canon to be? Wow. Maybe if you actually did for once hear what I was saying, I wouldnt need to repeat it. Distantlycharmed 00:07, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Merge. I've only skimmed the above, but I think that a course involving spacewalking doesn't mean that the course is entitled "spacewalking". We don't know what it's called. Without a specific name for the course, we shouldn't have an article about it. We can mention that a course or courses at the Academy involve space walking, hence the merge, which I support.--31dot 01:11, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
First, I suggest you actually do read about the subject and the comments instead of just skimming through it - as it will help you make an informed decision. Second, Paris calls is spacewalks and he specifically states 6 weeks course in the 3rd year. That is clear evidence that there was a specific course in the Academy's curriculum on space walking as opposed to just random spacewalks that they did at the Academy - which is what you assume (wrongly). There is a difference - even if we dont know what it was officially called on the course list 9whicxh doest matter, we go by what is said on screen). Fact remains students apparently had to do this in their third year as part of their studies - hence Paris pointing it out to B'Elanna and she responding that she couldnt have stayed around for that long. If this line of evidence doesnt convince you then I cannot help you. Distantlycharmed 01:30, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
I've now rephrased the first sentence, which should already solve this long debate about whether it was just a course "of space walks" or really a course "called Space Walks". What this doesn't solve is the categorization, and there I agree with Archduk3. We shouldn't categorize some article as a "Starfleet Academy course" if it may be the case that the article title is not the course title. This is possible here: imagine a course that has a curriculum of 50% space walks and 25% each of "Low-G" and "High-G activity". That course could contain 6 weeks of space walking without actually being called that. -- Cid Highwind 09:07, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
While I still think a merge is a good idea, I can accept and live with Cid's changes. I agree that it should not be categorized as a Starfleet Academy course if we don't know the formal title. --31dot 09:15, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with all that if it hadnt stated "6 week course in third year". That is very specific and frankly leaves very little room for speculation as to whether it was actually a course. Had he not been specific in such a manner, I would totally agree with Cid's rationale for not classifying it as a course. That it in fact could have been a course with a varying curriculum is pure speculation and not supported in any shape by canon. I mean we could honestly say the same thing about pretty much any of the courses we have listed: "what if that wasnt their official title, what if it was taught in conjunction with someone else, what if..." Paris makes it very clear that it was an actual course aimed at this kind of training if you listen to him again. While i agree that we dont wanna put in false information into this encyclopedia of course, this is hardly the case here. Paris was very specific and it would be a mistake to not categorize accordingly simply because we dont know the syllabus breakdown or official course title per registrar's office. It seems like we are splitting hairs here now. Distantlycharmed 16:14, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

So, first off, every one here thinks there is a course with space walks, and always have, so you can stop repeating it like we don't. Second, the vague mention of space walks could have been talking about this, so there is reason to think that a course with space walks isn't just about walking in space. Third, an unnamed course, which is what this is, should only be mentioned on the Starfleet Academy courses page in a unnamed section, or we should have a Unnamed Starfleet Academy courses page, but we should not just create a page with a made up name that's not supported by our naming conventions. Forth, extravehicular activity should still be merged here, for all the reasons mentioned already. - Archduk3 19:03, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

1) If everyone thinks or knows that there is a course with space walks, then why constantly pretend that this was not a course but some random activity done at the Academy that cannot either be defined nor narrowed done much (such as length of course) - if you "get it" then why dismiss it in the next sentence like someone pressed the reset button? 2) No -the vague mention of space walk could not have meant the easter bunny, Santa clause, random extravehicular activity or even zero-gravity combat training - it meant space walks. Just like Paris says" spacewalks - 6 weeks long in 3rd year. Not much room for speculation here unless you enjoy splitting hairs. The only thing he was not clear about is how the course was named per registrar's office. 3) this is and would not be a "made up" name - it is what Paris said it was called and for our intent and purposes it is enough. I mean when Janeway says "a course in Interspecies Ethics" - how do you know this is how the course was in fact really called? Maybe it was called something else? Maybe it was part of a larger course aimed at interspecies relations and you just make up lies about it being called a course on interspecies ethics....maybe ....maybe ...maybe....catch my drift? 4) this is an entry on a 6 week course taught in the third year at the academy. I dont see how extravehicular activity and all contents thereof referencing Kirk etc fit in. Seriously - how do you misunderstand what a "6 week course being taught in the 3rd year in spacewalks" anyway? The 6 week should give you a major clue that there is a very specific course. Distantlycharmed 05:58, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Splitting hairs, as you put it, is our business- though I don't think that's what's happening here. I might agree if the line was "you missed the 6 week spacewalk course in the third year"- but he didn't, he said a course "of spacewalks". The "of" is the key- and it means we don't know what the actual name is- there is plenty of room for specualtion. The amount of time the course is is irrelevant to its title- and even if it was, we still don't know the name- which means the alleged course should go on an unnamed course page or something similar.--31dot 10:49, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Spending time to make petty distinctions is a waste of time. If that is what MA's business is and you proudly embrace such a dysfunction then wow. As to the actual topic at hand: I disagree that "of" means that this is not a course. It is like saying "I took a 6 week course in pottery" Doesnt leave much room for speculation as to what the course was about or was called. Just like he says "took a 6 week course of spacewalks." It is obvious there was a course in space walking - with a defined length and during the student's third year of study. If you want to take it that far you might as well question every course that is currently listed under "Starfleet Academy Courses" - as none of them really ever are confirmed as the "official" course title. Speaking of splitting hairs. Furthermore, adding the extravehicular activity to this article would make it even worse as the contents thereof have nothing to do with a course in a named or unnamed category of "Starfleet Academy Courses." If this article is about the 6 week course, the other info on the general concept doesnt belong here. Distantlycharmed 16:00, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
A 6 week course in pottery doesn't mean the class was titled "Pottery"; it means that pottery was the subject taught. I'm not seeing how you can draw such a connection. Your thousand character plus responses are now just going around in circles.--31dot 16:40, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
I would add that you may be right that other course "titles" could probably be questioned. That's not a reason to keep this one listed as a course.--31dot 16:42, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
It is absolutely relevant how we did come to naming the other courses because it would, could and should serve as basis for naming other courses and vice versa. Uniform application. You cant just apply a different standard when it is convenient. The point of contention here is whether the category of "starfleet academy courses" applies and it does - even if we dont know the registrar's legal naming of the course. He even says "course". Secondly, as mentioned above, even if this were an unnamed course and totally a twilight zone type of mystery as to what it is officially called, it doesnt mean you can just combine it and merge with "extravehicular activity" as the content thereof has nothing to do with this 6 week named or unnamed course. How is Kirk relevant to a 6 week course in the third year Paris was talking about? Do you understand the difference between a "course" (taught at an institution) and just the general concept of things? Like a course in "cell biology" (with a syllabus etc) vs "cell biology" as a discipline. Distantlycharmed 22:26, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you have a serious malfunction when it comes to comprehending what everyone here has been saying, and that, yet again, trying to explain it to you has been nothing but a serious waste of time. You should really have someone else read this and explain it to you before posting yet another pointless, thousand character plus response, which is doing nothing now but highlighting your inability to understand written English. - Archduk3 23:16, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing i like more than watching a supposedly upright admin no less degrade themselves by resorting to the kinds of personal attacks he usually chastises others for. But to stay on topic: there is nothing pointless about this debate. You guys think that simply because we dont have the official course title of this, it means that it cannot be said to be a course under "starfleet academy courses" and that it should be merged with the general concept of "extravehicular activity". I disagree and you are wrong. Speaking of lacking comprehension of the english language: you either understand the difference between a course and a discipline or you dont. If you are trying to make another point, then elaborate accordingly instead of wasting my time by resorting to ad hominem attacks that do not contribute to the debate but distract from it. And mind you, it is always *you* who starts the personal attacks and underhanded insults. Just look at this thread and tell me who was rude, condescending and discourteous from the go. Distantlycharmed 16:43, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Before you lump together everyone as "you guys", Cid would(and has) split the difference with you(keep this here but no longer categorize it as a SFA course), and I said that I could live with it that way even while still supporting a merge. --31dot 23:55, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Space walk/Spacewalk Edit

As a non-native speaker I googled the term and I didn't find a variant where "space" and "walk" are separated like this. Wikipedia and NASA are calling this "spacewalk". So unless I'm overlooking something here, should this article be renamed? 12:47, November 18, 2016 (UTC)