stuff
← Older revision
Revision as of 15:58, February 8, 2015
Line 19:
Line 19:
== Deletion rationale ==
== Deletion rationale ==
+
{{navbox|
* [[Mongolia]]
* [[Mongolia]]
* [[Algeria]]
* [[Algeria]]
Line 32:
Line 33:
* [[Mali]]
* [[Mali]]
* Information added to a number of other pages.
* Information added to a number of other pages.
+
|
+
* [[Point Barrow]]
+
* [[Midway Island]]
+
* [[Fairbanks]]
+
* [[Wake Island]]
+
* [[Gulf of Alaska]]
+
* [[Yukon River]]
+
* [[Aleutian Islands]]
+
* [[Bering Strait]]
+
* [[Seattle]]
+
* [[Bristol Bay]]
+
* [[Hokkaido]]
+
* [[Honshu]]
+
* [[Kyushu]]
+
}}
Much like [[Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Cities from "The Cage" map|cities]] only referenced on these maps, which were deleted awhile ago, there is no relevance to ''Star Trek'' in this real world information beyond that a map ''of the world'' was used briefly at one point in a remastered episode. While that is relevant to [[Earth]], [[map]], and the background section on [[Antarctica]] (since the real map was changed in only that regard), it is not a good reason to reference it on/make an article for all 194 countries that will be in the real world map that was used. The [[MA:RESOURCE|resource policy]] states that production and reference materials "''...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the '''most relevant''' one.''" [[MA:COMMON|Common sense]] says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that ''the subject'' of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The rest of the information is only coincidentally shown/used. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:49, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
Much like [[Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Cities from "The Cage" map|cities]] only referenced on these maps, which were deleted awhile ago, there is no relevance to ''Star Trek'' in this real world information beyond that a map ''of the world'' was used briefly at one point in a remastered episode. While that is relevant to [[Earth]], [[map]], and the background section on [[Antarctica]] (since the real map was changed in only that regard), it is not a good reason to reference it on/make an article for all 194 countries that will be in the real world map that was used. The [[MA:RESOURCE|resource policy]] states that production and reference materials "''...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the '''most relevant''' one.''" [[MA:COMMON|Common sense]] says that when something like a real world map is used, the "most relevant" part, if nothing was deliberately changed or pointed out, was that ''the subject'' of the map was used; in the remastered episode, that was the world as a whole, and in the original episode the hemispheres shown. The rest of the information is only coincidentally shown/used. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:49, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
Line 37:
Line 53:
*'''KEEP''': They did appear in the show, so technically they are canon. In regards to Saudi Arabia, a long time ago (several years) there was a discussion about the radio jabber Uhura hears as the warhead is descending uncontrollably in "Assignment Earth". In one of the foreign languages, someone apparently says "Libya" and "Arabia". In addition [[Kazakhstan]] and [[Mongolia]] should definitely be kept since they are large enough to have names visible on the map and are referenced in other trek shows ([[Outer Mongolia]] and [[Baikonur Cosmodrome]]). On the flip side, I do think a country should not be listed unless someone has gone to the trouble of zooming in on the map and showing the actual name, as was the case with [[Sudan]] and [[Korea]]. I vote keep and even expand if needed. -[[User:FleetCaptain]] 7 Feb 15
*'''KEEP''': They did appear in the show, so technically they are canon. In regards to Saudi Arabia, a long time ago (several years) there was a discussion about the radio jabber Uhura hears as the warhead is descending uncontrollably in "Assignment Earth". In one of the foreign languages, someone apparently says "Libya" and "Arabia". In addition [[Kazakhstan]] and [[Mongolia]] should definitely be kept since they are large enough to have names visible on the map and are referenced in other trek shows ([[Outer Mongolia]] and [[Baikonur Cosmodrome]]). On the flip side, I do think a country should not be listed unless someone has gone to the trouble of zooming in on the map and showing the actual name, as was the case with [[Sudan]] and [[Korea]]. I vote keep and even expand if needed. -[[User:FleetCaptain]] 7 Feb 15
−
*I think this is personal. I have a checkered history on this website and I might have created enemies along the way. Why do I think that it is personal? Let us take two example, Mongolia and Sudan. These pages were created by FleetCaptain. Between 2008 and 2014, the admins Gvsualan, Archduk3, Cleanse, and 31dot were involved in the evolution of one or both of these pages. By the time, I entered the scene, the pages were nearly identical. If there was any problem with their relevance, there was three or four times in which the pages could have been marked for deletion. They weren't. I found a page that listed the countries from largest to smallest. I realized that for small countries, they simply wouldn't be visible. Then I wrote the article so that the reader would know where the country was located, its capital, and where it was seen. (In hindsight, I could have dropped the information about the capital. It wasn't needed.) In the background section, I included information on the map with a link to it. If I could find the country on the older maps, I would include that information, with the relevant maps, in the same section. Never did I intend to do all countries, for some countries are incredibly small and would never appear on the screen. Within a day, instead of fixing the page, Archduk3 put up these articles for deletion. Archduk3, in my talk page, made reference to a page that had been deleted in the past and how I had circumvented procedure when I rewrote the page. I think, as a demonstration of his power and his displeasure, he marked pages I had worked on for deletion. This was done during or after he had blocked me out for an hour. [[User:Lakenheath72|Lakenheath72]] ([[User talk:Lakenheath72|talk]]) 19:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
+
+
I think this is personal. I have a checkered history on this website and I might have created enemies along the way. Why do I think that it is personal? Let us take two example, Mongolia and Sudan. These pages were created by FleetCaptain. Between 2008 and 2014, the admins Gvsualan, Archduk3, Cleanse, and 31dot were involved in the evolution of one or both of these pages. By the time, I entered the scene, the pages were nearly identical. If there was any problem with their relevance, there was three or four times in which the pages could have been marked for deletion. They weren't. I found a page that listed the countries from largest to smallest. I realized that for small countries, they simply wouldn't be visible. Then I wrote the article so that the reader would know where the country was located, its capital, and where it was seen. (In hindsight, I could have dropped the information about the capital. It wasn't needed.) In the background section, I included information on the map with a link to it. If I could find the country on the older maps, I would include that information, with the relevant maps, in the same section. Never did I intend to do all countries, for some countries are incredibly small and would never appear on the screen. Within a day, instead of fixing the page, Archduk3 put up these articles for deletion. Archduk3, in my talk page, made reference to a page that had been deleted in the past and how I had circumvented procedure when I rewrote the page. I think, as a demonstration of his power and his displeasure, he marked pages I had worked on for deletion. This was done during or after he had blocked me out for an hour. [[User:Lakenheath72|Lakenheath72]] ([[User talk:Lakenheath72|talk]]) 19:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
+
*'''Delete''' per Archduk. This seems no different that the situation with the cities and would be no different than saying that since the Earth has appeared in canon that any geographic feature on the Earth should get a page. [[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 00:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Archduk. This seems no different that the situation with the cities and would be no different than saying that since the Earth has appeared in canon that any geographic feature on the Earth should get a page. [[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 00:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
+
+
=== A piece of advice (from [[User talk:Archduk3]]) ===
+
+
Don't ever link to a page which can be used to defeat your argument, if your intention is to win the argument.
+
+
You wrote, ''The [[MA:RESOURCE|resource policy]] states that production and reference materials "''...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the '''most relevant''' one.''"
+
''
+
+
When you included a paragraph from the resource policy, you deliberately altered it. The paragraph reads, ''Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock.'' By altering the paragraph, you altered its intention, so that it would suit your needs. The text, in layman English, says, don't copy the paragraph from a reference source. Say it in your own words and include the information in an appendix of the most relevant page.
+
+
By altering the text, you placed all production and reference materials under the same category. This would equate to an user being unable to make an article based on an Okudagram, a dedication plaque, or even the map seen in {{e|Storm Front}}. These are all production works and all are subject to deletion. That is not what the section is referring to; it is referrring to a smaller subsection of production and reference material.
+
+
According to that same resource policy, as the map was seen in the episode, it doesn't fall under the fourth category of reference works created by non-production staff. The resource policy says, ''Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life.'' Now, if that map was not seen in the episode, I would not be allowed to write about any portion of the map in the main text of the work. Instead, that material would have to be mentioned in an appendix, and in the most relevant article. To give an example, from another part of Memory Alpha. There is an article about [[Bekka]]. Bekka was from a name tag attached to an uniform; the name tag wasn't seen in the film. So, this article should be placed for deletion. Information about this character would have to be placed in an appendix in the most relevant article. I don't know what that is right now. There is nothing against writing articles for portions of the map seen in {{e|The Cage}}.
+
+
This is why you should never ever link to a page, and altered the text from that page, for any intelligent person can discern that you are bending the rules to your favor. He or she will think you are being petulant and are abusing your admin powers to make a point. So, next time, you want to make a point, and CYA, never link to a page. Most people will not bother to find or even read the resource policy. It's buried deep in Memory Alpha.
+
+
As for common sense, it is a subjective thing. There is no universal common sense. I have read the common sense policy. It says nothing about the map. It includes a link to common sense at Wikipedia, where it is treated as a topic in epistemology. (In philosophy, this is the theory of knowledge.) People have been debating philosophy for thousands of years, and our civilization is no closer to a consensus on any topic discussed in philosophy. You have your common sense, I have mine. It is ludicrous to expect me to share your common sense. I have learned that concepts like common sense, virtue, vice, and other philosophical topics are abstract. I am not an abstract thinker. I am a concrete thinker.
+
+
I can understand one point from that common sense page, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to make a point. When you take the steps to mark a page for deletion, when you block a user for an hour, you are being disruptive to Memory Alpha. Why did you do that? Because I wrote a page that had been deleted. Well, I can do that, for I can ignore a rule if I think that I am improving the site. That is in the common sense rules, and on the main Wikipedia page.
+
+
Again, if you are making a point about not ignoring consensus, why would you include a link to a page that says I can ignore a rule if I believe that my action will work to the betterment of the wikia? Again, CYA by not including the link.
+
+
You may not like articles about cities and countries from the maps. There is nothing against it in the rules. If I want to write articles about everything on the maps, the rules say I can. If you had never made the links, then I wouldn't be at liberty to say that.[[User:Lakenheath72|Lakenheath72]] ([[User talk:Lakenheath72|talk]]) 09:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
+
+
:You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. In this case, there is also a previously agreed to consensus that such pages are not appropriate. It would be like saying that every geographic feature of the Earth should get a page because the Earth has been seen in canon. Having many duplicate pages that say the same thing(X appeared on a map) and only that thing harms the information as it makes it harder to find.
+
:Archduk had every right to block you; you created the disruption, he ended it. Despite what you are told on your userpage by a disgruntled editor, there is no "elite" group here. If you don't like the previously agreed to consensus, you need to convince those already here to change their mind. This is the case on any wiki project, especially Wikipedia(with potentially hundreds of thousands to convince)[[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 12:05, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
+
+
I don't believe in conspiracies; however, when I hear a person described as "disgruntled", I am more inclined to believe there might be a grain of truth in what the individual is saying. That word has been used by corporations, governments, and other organizations in the past to discredit an individual. In a number of cases, it has been found that the individual did have valuable insight into what was happening and felt that others needed to know. They were vindicated in the public arena. I am not saying that this will happen with FleetCaptain. What I am saying is that using that word has increased the probability that I will be more weary of you and the other admins.
+
+
As well, I do believe that individuals will alter or interpret documents in such a way that it will suit their needs. Archdu3 changed the words of the text to meet his needs. He has broadened the scope of what was discussed on that page to include all production material and reference material. Before it was limited to materials that existed outside the scope of the episodes and films. With his alteration, he has added things that are within the scope of the episodes and films. This includes Okudagrams, dedication plaques, and other props and/or graphics made specifically for Star Trek. The lack of correction on your part strongly implied that you are in agreement with him. By expanding the scope of this rule, a precedent has been set. A deletion procedure for these items may not occur today or tomorrow; however, it doesn't rule out the possibiity that it may happen in the future. I don't feel that an assurance that this won't happen will assuage my concerns. (There happens to be a fairly large number of pages that fall into the duplicate pages that say the same thing; I constantly see an admin doing a "copy+edit" on the wikia activities page. Alone, I can think of the pages that I made for the German map that meet this barest of criteria. If the admins were sincere about ending the scourge of duplicate pages, they would mark those pages for deletion and the admin who does the "copy+edit" would be told to stop that nonsense.)
+
+
The rules governing wikias are open to interpretation. The wikia says that a person can ignore a rule for improvement or maintenance. There was no mention of a consensus. (Hell, I don't remember reading anything about any thing called a consensus in the rules. It's probably buried deep in that manual or the idea was formed after the manual was written.) This page on the main Wikia page linked directly to the common sense page which linked to the page about it on the main Wikia site. Common sense falls into the category of epistemological items (the theory of knowledge). Philosophers have been debating this for centuries. If they can't reach a consensus, how am I, a non-philosopher, expected to know what is common sense? I know how to act civil - be respectful, listen to others, don't steal, etc. I don't know how to act common sensical. That is above my station.
+
+
My point to Archdu3 was this, don't weaken your argument by making links to pages that can be used against you. Keep that stuff unknowable. Not many people will bother with those pages as they are buried deep in Memory Alpha. And, unlike a real manual, there is no index. Either you know where things are or you don't. It takes considerable effort to find anything. I know, for it took me hours to wade through the whole thing. I am determined and focused; others will be less so. I think he estimated that I wouldn't bother with the whole clicking the link business and reading the pages. I think he thought he was more intelligent than me. He underestimated me. I have an intelligent mind; I can see what he is doing. I don't need to believe in conspiracies or the words of a "disgruntled editor" to know that someone is asserting his dominance and control and is attempting to put me in my place.[[User:Lakenheath72|Lakenheath72]] ([[User talk:Lakenheath72|talk]]) 13:37, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
+
:And I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read don't need to read] a large [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text wall of text] to know that you would rather tell us how brilliant you are and we should just bow down and accept what you are doing than work with those here to either understand why things are the way they are, or to convince us that what you want is better. I will restate this since you don't seem to address it: You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. If everyone just ignored the rules when they wanted, rules would have no meaning whatsoever. We all have ideas about what would be improvements, but we must work with each other. [[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 14:36, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
== Admin resolution ==
== Admin resolution ==