Since when do we cite lists? The existance of this list is to merely cut back on the load and length of the Starfleet Academy page. Any citable information on the courses should be included on that page and links to courses and subjects should be listed on the list. The uncited information has now been posted to the Academy page. --Gvsualan 22:27, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Since I don't recognise over half the name of courses on that list, and would rather like to know when they were mentioned, as I don't believe they originated from a valid resource; since they were added by the same anon who also put the info about "Basic" and "Advanced" courses on the page, and I consider their inclusion dubious. I know perfectly well why the list was created, thank you. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:37, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I never said you didn't, so don't get so defensive -- but for the sake of argument, if questions came up as to the legitimacy of the content, why was the talk page not utilized eariler, in conjuction with a "pna-inaccurate", or even with the "pna-cite"? Explainations and clarity are the best to avoiding misunderstandings. --Gvsualan 23:20, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Your comment directly refers to my use of {{pna-cite}}, then follows up with saying why the list is there - I am therefore led to assume the comment was aimed at me. As to why the talk page was not used? I felt the notice gave sufficient explanation (as it was applied directly after the said anon's edits). In addition, I think citing in lists is a good idea, at least for redlinks - as it gives the editor an idea as to where to find information to create the article, and can be removed once the article is created.
As an additional, but separate note: this is one of the reasons why I dislike the removal of "List of..." from all these pages - people don't see that it's a list, and will add content. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:43, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Per the above conversation, I have removed the following as they were not intralinked to any other page than this page (or were not specifically referenced as a SFA course), as they remain unconfirmed and are potentially non-canon. --Alan del Beccio 10:56, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Removed part IIEdit

Only cited here. --LauraCC (talk) 15:57, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was the caps giving me trouble then. I still don't see the term "advanced" in the article...--LauraCC (talk) 16:01, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Well, apparently I moved the page linked above to phonology 8 years ago, though it would seem to be somehow connected to Star Trek (2009), since there is a link to advanced hand-to-hand combat (links) that dates back to that time as well. It may have been from some dossier was released in conjunction with the film. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:21, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Could be they're all from that same file then. Botany would be Sulu, pathology= Bones, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, July 21, 2017 (UTC)