Talk:Delta Flyer

Untitled

I'm trying to fix the syntax (specifically the unbalanced comment tags) for the Wiki Syntax project. But I have to say these have me stumped. Please let me know what's with the whacky comment tags.

Zachara 08:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's because I'm a web programmer and I'm used to reading such things, but the comments seem balanced to me. Kaz 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to use this system and I don't want to go just editing away and do something wrong. But i feel i must point out that ont he front page it says the last apperance of the Delta Flyer was in Unimatrix Zero. I just watched Drive Season 7 episode 3 and the Delta Flyer is in it. If i see it in any later episodes i'll bring it up. Sorry if i am out of line bringing this up. ~percent20

The Delta flyer was rebuilt after it's destruction in Unimatrix Zero.

The initial text in the wiki article about the Flyer mentions that Seven of Nine made the suggestion to Tom (in an earlier episode). I tried to edit the text to specifically mention which episode ("Drone") and some other person removed the edit.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.29.1 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

The article doesn't make an assertion of independent notability. I've directed to an article where the subject receives a modicum of real-world treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone opted to undo the redirect without commenting here or at the wikiproject talk page. Please promptly articulate a rationale for restoring this content. Otherwise, I will restore the redirect Sundayish. --EEMIV (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect. There is no independent notability of this craft. I could not find significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. GB fan 19:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to be no more or less notable than any other articles about warp drive vessels in the Star Trek universe. Do you propose redirecting all such articles?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for EEMIV, but I look at each article individually and make a decision on what I think should happen with that article. The different vessels within the Star Trek universe have different amounts of coverage by independent reliable sources so you can't base what I would recommend on other article on the information available for this article. This one does not have much coverage. Currently the article has 3 sources. the first source is not an independent source and does not establish independent notability. The second source might help, but I do not have access to the source and from the description in the reference itself is questionable. It appears that this is just supplemental information but I do not know for sure. The third source does not even mention the delta flyer, that appears to be a source that would be better suited for inclusion in the main Voyager article rather than this one. GB fan 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This topic is appropriately covered at the redirect target. The article itself does not assert this specific subject's independent notability. The lack of sources and overwhelmingly in-universe treatment -- long-standing issues with this article -- suggest that this article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a stand-alone article. Chaswmsday, as the restoring editor, you have a burden of proof to assert/demonstrate this subject's notability.

As for other ship articles, there are quite a few discussions at the Wikiproject talk page (and archives) about the treatment of Star Trek ships. The general consensus is that most articles are laden with in-universe trivia and fail to assert independent notability. There are many a-redirect for these subjects. Please feel free to engage with/ask for a third opinion at the Wikiproject talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is Star Trek, a fictional universe, so most of the references will be official or fan-created websites. This particular ship was the setting for a number of episodes, and having a separate vessel often served as a plot device, e.g. crew members lacking the protection of the main starship, or the Delta Flyer saving the day when the starship is in trouble.

I'm curious as to why notability wasn't an issue throughout your prior edits dating back to 2006, @EEMIV. Perhaps this article could be merged into Spacecraft in Star Trek or Star Trek: Voyager, or elsewhere. I disagree that this particular topic was adequately covered at the redirect. Content removal guidelines generally call for text to be "saved" on the relevant talk page; by redirecting, this article's previous independent existence would have been significantly obscured for any future editors trying to restore and improve it.

I haven't contributed to the Star Trek project before, so I don't know how responsive its editors are, but I think it's more appropriate to make note of any concerns there and let that community respond. To that end, I will place comments there. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, fan-created web sites aren't an appropriate source of information, either for verifiability or establishing notability. As for my previous edits: one of my very first Wikipedia edits was the creation of cellular regeneration and entertainment chamber ... which I eventually realized failed WP:GNG and was more apt as a redirect. *shrug* I just came to better understand Wikipedia policy and better apply it. Anyhow, thanks for raising the question at the wikiproject talk page. If you can find some third-party material to better address notability, I'd be happy to work with you on it in userspace. --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt that very much of Star Trek "knowledge" exists independent of Paramount or Trekkie/Trekker-dom. As we know, it's all quite fervent and self-sustaining. Perhaps the aircraft carrier, space shuttle and the whole influence on pop culture and technology would be candidates for Wikipedia, with the rest of ST minutia relegated to Memory Alpha and other wikis. Then again, I've never understood the raison d'être of other wikis anyway.

Just what is the 75-cent description of "notability"? Like most policies and guidelines in WP, I usually end up running around in circles of vagueness trying to understand just what the authors had intended and why so much of it seems to be about "radio programmes" and other un-American things... ;>) ! --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well? Anyone who wants to delete this page needs to answer what would satisfy them. Doing nothing for twelve months and then deleting the page with no further comment is bad form. 3142 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The earlier question (and this one) seem to be a case of I didn't hear that -- the elements of WP:GNG are pretty clear-cut for elements of fiction, such as significant third-party coverage and treatment of the subject from a real-world perspective. Numerous good and featured articles stand as exemplars: James T. Kirk comes to mind. The ongoing lack of multiple third-party sources covering this topic continue to suggest this subject fails WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is trying to delete the page. The page was redirected to a different article because the notability has not been established for this to be an independent article. Chaswmsday the only person to object to the change last year appears to agree that this should be a redirect. He has edited this page since the article was changed to a redirect by changing the class of the article from stub to redirect. Can you explain why you object to the article being redirected? GB fan 00:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, a cursory look at refs under James T. Kirk shows that most of them are TV and movie announcements, or stories about William Shatner, not Kirk. Of course Star Trek is a wider cultural phenomenon, but I'm not sure the Kirk article's refs truly reflect that. A wider issue: I still fail to understand the distinction between WP and Star Trek wikias. If strict notability and source "rules and regulations" are to be enforced by WP, probably most of "Star Trek" should be relegated to wikias... If we're meant to get all bent out of shape over the inclusion of this or that subtopic in WP... --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That most of the references are to announcements or the actor behind the character is exactly the point: Wikipedia cares about the real-world facet of subjects in fiction. The distinction between Wikipedia and many Wikia projects (at least around fiction) is that the latter treats the subject "in-universe," as if they really do live/exist. When the sources/references around a subject only or largely adopt that in-universe perspective (e.g. the TV shows, films, and even much of the reference material like The Star Trek Encyclopedia) -- as is the case with the Delta Flyer -- then it is probably entirely apt for thorough treatment through that lens at a Wikia project, but not so much at Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Depiction" section of James T. Kirk is largely written "in-universe". A huge percentage of Borg (Star Trek) is as well. Most fandom entries in WP (on any fictional subject) don't strictly pass the sniff test, and the treatment and reception of various articles is extremely uneven. Just sayin'. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The "depiction" or "portrayal" or "plot" section of fiction-related articles is one chunk that explains how the subject comes across in the show. Note that it uses the present tense, as appropriate for describing an event in fiction. Plot sections and the like are meant to be summaries, and not exhaustive - given how much Kirk-ness there is, that article does a good job. I haven't look at the Borg article in a while. You can also expand your review to include articles on e.g. a work by Shakespeare or Moby-Dick to see there, too, that there's a plot section, but that the bulk of the content is -- or should be -- about the work's inspirations, development, critical reaction, etc. Yes, some articles are uneven -- WP:SOFIXIT, and that's why we have tiers for e.g. start, C-class, B-class, GA, FA, etc. for articles. --EEMIV (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect or Article

Over a year ago there was a little bit of an edit war over this article. The article was going back and forth from a redirect to an article. Earlier this month I reverted this back to a redirect because no additional sources have been provided nor have any improvements been made. Today User:3142 reverted it back to an article with an edit summary of "We've been waiting 12 months for you to respond on the talk page, don't claim no-one else has kept this waiting)" 3142 has never edited the article or the talk page before so I am not sure what they are waiting for. GB fan 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the account was even created 12 months ago. GB fan 21:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I see now that 3142 has asked a question above. GB fan 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

People are being very selective about application. If the assertion is that this article should be redirected according to policy follow that very policy - where has the AFD discussion occurred as mandated by that very same policy?

Remember that redirection is contrary to policy and ultimately AN/I worthy unless you can legitimately assert:

• You have searched for sources and not found any. Given this has been going on for 12 months I find it difficult to believe the pro-deletionists have found nothing in all that time.
• If a redirect takes place the contents are merged. Among other things, this implies the target is actually edited as a result of the merge. It does not mean that circular links to the old article for more information are left in place unedited.
• The redirect is non-controversial or had been discussed at AFD.

Have any of these conditions been met? 3142 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider the relevant policies: Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_that_replace_previous_articles & Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Redirection. The policies are very clear that 3142 is in the wrong here and needs to gain a better understanding of wikipedia policy. Redirect is not deletion, and therefore there is no requirement for AFD submission, simply consensus on the talk page, which has arguably been reached. As an outside viewer with no interest in Star Trek, I agree with GB fan's redirect. If you still disagree with the redirect, then take it to DRN, but I'll warn you that you'll be wasting your time. Rgambord (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

[WP:FAILN] is the specific policy at play here. It advises on the AFD requirement. In any event, the lack of sources has been asserted. I have identified source - non-trival sources, not connected to Paramount or merchandising, non-trivial and not self-published. That took less than five minutes. I can post them here but GB fan is asserting that he has already done a good faith attempt to locate those sources. I want to see where he checked, what he found, and why it didn't fit the bill - it is he making the assertion after all. 3142 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article is not being deleted, it's being redirected, and therefore WP:FAILN is irrelevant. Did you read the two policies I cited? I have done a good faith search and found nothing but fansites. Post your sources and stop being difficult or trying to prove a point or whatever it is you are doing by witholding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have looked for reliable sources and have found none. If you have found those sources, great. Edit the redirect back to an article and add them so that notability is established. GB fan 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)