Talk:Vulcan system

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

[edit] Moved from: Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion

• 40 Eridani system
• 40 Eridani System (unused redirect loop) --Captainmike 07:01, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • I think content should be moved back to 40 Eridani system from 40 Eridani star group, then that page can be deleted. Only the Talos system was called star group... -- Cid Highwind 09:33, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • No need. all three pages have been deprecated, all relevant content has been moved to the other 40 Eri articles, at least until more canon facts are revealed justifying the new entry. This is the same case as the Earth city deletions. We have real life info but no Trek relevance. --Captainmike 18:22, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
      • You removed content from the 'star group' page as well after I last commented. I reverted that for the moment, because this circular redirect (System -> system -> star group -> System) as well as the lack of any comment about what was moved where was just confusing. I assume you copied most of that info to 40 Eridani A, but I still think that 40 Eridani system is a valid article, if only to list all 'components' of that system (B and C should not be described in the article about A, for example). If you still think that this page should be deleted, please suggest it at Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion, because I think that this needs to be discussed first. -- Cid Highwind 20:51, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

[edit] In the absence of Trek-universe info

Is real-world info truly extraneous? Trek does have basis in our reality, and (at least some) fans surely would be interested in what Vulcan would be like. Barring 'canon' that indicates contrary, real-world information seems appropriate for stating what Trek-world would be like. ChristTrekker 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While that info on the life zone is interesting, it is never stated in Star Trek, and we are not Wikipedia. We cover info from canon Star Trek. A wikipedia article is where that information belongs, IMO. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what Cobra said. As I said when I reverted the edit, it doesn't belong on a Trek encyclopedia. I also tried to say "we are not Wikipedia", but that got cut off for some reason... --From Andoria with Love 10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet "When three astronomers [...] a theory Gene Roddenberry himself supported by signing their letter."—which basically says the same thing (in a less technical/complete way) as the life zone info I'd contributed, and is likewise based in the "real world"—is maintained as a part of the article. I understand what you're saying, but I think the distinction drawn in this case is a bit fuzzy. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Roddenberry was involved in that particular instance, which makes it an appropriate piece of background information for an in-universe article here. -- Renegade54 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it just seems silly to me. The life zone info is precisely the thing the astronomers were discussing and shared with Roddenberry. Reduced to layman's terms perhaps, but that's what it was.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. The thematic restriction has good intentions, I'm sure, but it serves to make Memory Alpha less interesting and useful to people like myself. Might I at least suggest that articles based on real-world things contain a link to their counterpart at Wikipedia as a standard practice, to aid people that would appreciate information beyond the narrow focus of this wiki? This would be beneficial and could easily be done via a template, which could categorize as well as providing a standard format. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have a standard practice of links to wikipedia using {{wikipedia}}. There is already one in this article. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To expand on Cobra's comment, if you feel that there are other Wikipedia links that might prove beneficial to the reader, by all means add them to the External Links section of the article. -- Renegade54 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did notice there was a link, but it's not obvious. I guess I was hoping the Wikipedia template for such would stand out a bit more than looking like just another link. Maybe not quite as much as this but something more distinctive, maybe like

Wikipedia has more information on the real world Vulcan system.

with a little Wiki icon. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be easy enough to change all the Wikipedia links so that they stand out more, if there was a consensus to do so, simply by modifying the Wikipedia template. Since this would result in a fairly significant and widespread change on MA, I'd suggest you put your proposal to a vote. The best place for that would probably be at Template talk:Wikipedia. -- Renegade54 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a new template that would stress the "real world" aspect. But perhaps it doesn't matter. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearances

Is there any particular reason why the "appearances" section doesn't include all the episodes and films listed in Vulcan (planet)#Appearances? —Josiah Rowe 08:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this is supposed to catalogue specific references to the "Vulcan system", rather than any of its component bodies. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the header "appearances" rather than "references"? The Vulcan system appeared in Star Trek, even if it wasn't named as such. —Josiah Rowe 17:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)