Talk: Universe

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

• 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

Never mentioned onscreen as "prime reality" — Morder

Discussion

• Yeah I think that's a good enough reason, could be classed as fan fiction as that phrase is never mentioned Natonstan 09:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not mentioned. Also inaccurate, as every reality would consider themselves the "prime" one. I assume this was based on the "Spock Prime" in the credits, but that is for our benefit and was never referred to.--31dot 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• As it is, the article is a sub-stub that might as well be deleted. However, the terminology we use (and "prime" seems to have a good chance of becoming our terminology to describe the "1966-2008" Trek timeline) should probably be described somewhere - perhaps Memory Alpha:Point of view, perhaps some production POV article like Star Trek, perhaps even a background comment at alternate timeline. So, if this article becomes more than the stub it is now, think about merging with one of those. -- Cid Highwind 10:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: We could call it the Original reality, referring to all Star Trek material from 1966-2009. (Excluding the alternate reality of Star Trek, of course). – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger Murtaugh (talk • contribs).
  • I don't see how using a different name than "prime something" would change this issue in any way. I'd consider "prime" to be at least a valid production POV term, because it has been used by the production. That's more than can be said about any alternatives, I guess. -- Cid Highwind 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This reality has been more than referenced and therefore deserves it's own article to describe the actions and consequences of lifeforms in the "Prime reality". Roger Murtaugh 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment but that's not reason to keep it. It's never been referenced as prime reality it's just a moniker that was made up by us to refer to the non-alternate reality. We've gotten along just fine with all the mirror universes and what-not without this. If it is a keep it needs to be an in-universe name - otherwise it needs to be put in a realworld article. — Morder 06:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what "actions and consequences" need to be described in this article? If the term was not used, then there can't be any.--31dot 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This covers most of the in-universe content on MA and anything not in the "prime" reality is already marked as such. If anything this should be a category, but i don't even think that would be helpful. (and I don't want to have to be the one to add the tags to nearly ever page on here). - Archduk3 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Needed to distinguish from the alternate reality, e.g. the two different versions of Kirk. Even if it has not been called this on screen, we need something to call the reality that the majority of Trek productions take place within. Kidburla 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We already distinguish it by calling the new film the "alternate" reality. Since the alleged "prime" reality was there first, it doesn't need to be distinguished from anything, new realities need to be distinguished from it.--31dot 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For example, on the page for "Winona Kirk" it lists "Status: Deceased (prime reality); Alive (2258, alternate reality)". How would we rephrase this if we didn't have the term "prime reality" on MA? Kidburla 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)