Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. It is clear that the supermajority doesn't want the article deleted. Therefore, it would probably make sense to open a vote for merge somewhere. - Sikon 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Jean-Luc Picard

Yes, it comes from a published article, but it's not from a licensed source and is clearly non-canon (and can't be made canon, either). This VFD should probably be taken to apply to other crossover articles taken from the same source, InQuest Gamer 39. jSarek 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Like I said on the IRC channel...the article is meant to be a serious look at a cross-over, and makes no mention of a non-canon status....so though I hate myself for adding it...I'd prefer to keep it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cull Tremayne 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - We don't merge the content of other ambiguous sources into one page, why start now? Except for the obvious reason of course :P.
  3. Kuralyov 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise! -- I need a name (Complain here) 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. For the sake of consistency... everything that appears in the Challenge magazines (and other Ambiguously-canon sources) have their own articles. --Azizlight 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Also see Forum:A non-canon portal.... --Azizlight 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving form topic to topic so that no one had the chance to interrupt. It was really quite hypnotic.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Take Star Wars where no man has gone before. KEJ 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. This takes all of my strength to do. VT-16 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Meh. Imp 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Cutch 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Only if deemed non-canon and limited to what's in InQuest Gamer 39. No adding stuff from other Star Trek materials. Per Azizlight also. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. If this _is_ intended to be serious canon, keep it, but label it as non-canon (no way they would canonize this), and limit the information to what is in Gamer 39. Every topic in that issue can be addressed here, but it _must_ be limited to what happened in this universe. Serendipitousus 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. If you can't find it within yourself to stand up to the truth, you don't deserve to wear that uniform. :P StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. This was a tough decision for me, mainly because I wanted to vote merge just so that I could say "The line must be drawn HEYAH!" -- Ozzel 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: 'Lol, the line must be drawn HEYAH!', possibly the greatest dialogue in sci-fi evah.... next to 'Powah! Unlimited powah!" KEJ 08:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Eyrezer 08:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. It's not fanon. Jasca Ducato 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Non-canon does not automatically equal fanon. -BaronGrackle 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Adamwankenobi 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. MoffRebus 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Yoshi626 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge (Give reasons, please)

  1. Merge with InQuest Gamer 39. Covering this crossover article is neat and worthwhile, but we surely don't need individual articles for these things. jSarek 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Imp 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. OK, just merge, not delete Enochf 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC) you're no fun anymore
  3. Per jSarek ^^^^^ - JMAS 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. See comment below. Same goes for Soong-type android, etc.Valin Kenobi 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. I agree with jSarek. -- Dark Spork 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. This is too much. It should all be merged to Inquest Gamer 39. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Merge per Riffsyphon1024 --FireV 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Hell, I've never been a fan of having individual articles for the Polyhedron crap either. Havac 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. I don't believe this was meant to be canonical in any way, but it would be good to keep it as a redirect (much like Skaro system redirects to the unlicensed source which implied Daleks used Lambda-class shuttles.) —Silly Dan (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Merge per jSarek.–SentryTalk 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. I come back for all the important stuff. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/21.gif Merge - confusion, notability, canonicity, etc. CooperTFN 07:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Merge per jSarek. —Unsigned comment by Wildyoda (talk • contribs)
  14. Per jSarek. - breathesgelatinTalk 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Hmm. jSarek speaks good talk. Hmmm. (heh..sorry a little Captain Caveman there)WhiteBoy 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. It's that I don't like Star Trek but the article gives no real information that fits into anything.Bonko 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Changing my vote to merge. Why? Because a bunch of maniacs want to retain redlinks in the article rather than linking to Wikipedia or Memory-Alpha. A logical outcome of this is that it warrants the creation of all sorts of irrelevant Star Trek articles in this article. The most logical way to prevent this is either to merge or to eliminate the redlinks. Since the latter option has been eliminated itself by those maniacal tendencies, the only logical outcome is to vote for a merger... and yes, I an a Spock fan. KEJ 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    KEJ is correct. Keeping the article only promotes the rest in that series to be created and this is not a Star Trek wiki like Memory Alpha is. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Agree with jSarek. This should apply to all other "crossover" and ambig articles as well. Keep the Wookiee clean! -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Merge as per jSarek. After all, we don't have a section Star Wars/Transformers merger, either. :P MaclimesZero 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you can find a merger in a published source, I'll be more than happy to add it. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. I agree with jSarek on this. Charlii 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Per jSarek. Chack Jadson 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Delete

  1. I'll stand alone on the delete line, stating that this is for use with a game, and as such fits just a sweetly into things like articles on characters created in Star Wars Galaxies, sure in your personal game you can have Picard, Data, Worf, or even Kirk, as a non player character, but it does not make it's Canon level high enough for an individual character article, the same as my personal Character in SWG could be loosely based on Revan from KOTOR, does this mean that my events in SWG should be recorded under Revans article??? N.Y.N.E.Comlink 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Broox 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't think that the original article was meant to be canon, and it probably didn't recieve authorization from Lucasfilm. Milo FettComlink 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. People who like Star Trek hate those that like Star Wars, why would they combine the two? It really doesn't seem canon or have a reason to be here. Orange_lightsaberVillip 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete. Star Trek meets Star Wars is a longtime fantasy of mine, but it is both impractical and very, very difficult to impliment into any kind of real canon -- the universes are very incompatable. It is doable. but until it comes to be in any kind of tangible form, this page has no right to exist.--Goodwood 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. It's outrageous! Jean Luc Picard can't be here on Wookieepedia ! If we can add Jean luc Picard we can add Enterprise too and others things from Star Trek!Darth Nospher 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Give me one Star Wars topic in the Appearances section and I might change my mind.--Jump!!

Comments

I'm interested to hear both sides before I cast a vote here. Why get rid of this article, when we have kept the Henry Jones article? And are there any other precedents set here? WhiteBoy 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there any other reason for this besides the obvious Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry? I think this might set a possible precedent to merge all "hated" articles into their respective sources. Max (bunny) springs to mind, as well as Han's illegitimate daughter Danielle Kieran. Cull Tremayne 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto to both. Kuralyov 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So I guess it's a combined vote on all the Trekky stuff from that one source, including Mars (home of the Utopia Planitia shipyards!) and the Soong-Type Android (fully functional!) Enochf 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1)For starters, as a George Lucas creation, Henry Jones has a closer connection to SW than ST does. But more importantly, he appeared in an official SW publication (Star Wars Tales). Granted, it was an Infinities crossover, BUT it passed LFL approval and was published by an official licensee. Those are the crucial differences between Indy and this Trek stuff. As far as I can tell, this is an unofficial crossover in a non-licensed publication.

---2)This is also different from the ambiguously canon material written by SW authors in Polyhedron, etc. because those were intended to be serious canon. That puts them at a level somewhere above fanon but below C-canon.

---3)Sure, make an article for completeness' sake and for novelty, but there's no justification for adding a bunch of useless (as far as Wookieepedia is concerned) stub articles on Picard, the Borg, Data, etc. Put some Memory Alpha links in the article instead of duplicating content in a lame way.

---4) And in case anyone is wondering, this has nothing to do with the ST/SW "rivalry", since I am a Trek fan as well as a Wars fan. I just don't feel this belongs on the Wooki, considering the source material.

---P.S.: I will disintegrate the first person who tries to retcon this into canon. :p--Valin Kenobi 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to correct something you said...this material is intended to be serious canon...it's not some parody, or someone messing about...it was the people at Wizards of the Coast taking a look at the Star Wars and Star Trek CCG's, noticing they were created by the same people, and showing you how they could work together as well as giving background information on how the two universes could work together. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case I think it should stay, but with some "Behind the scenes" info.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you just quote from "Timescape" up there? ^_^ Sheesh. There is a whole wikipedia devoted to Trek, y'know. Enochf 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on dial-up and a time budget, so I can't address everything, but I want to point out a few things. First, most of our so-called "ambiguous" articles are no such thing. The VIPs have repeatedly said that these articles were never reviewed by Lucasfilm, aren't included in the Holocron, and aren't canonical (as I said, on dial-up, so I can't dig up the quotes myself right now, but anyone familiar with the VIP or Holocron threads at the Official Site should be able to find them). In answer to Whiteboy's question, they're even below Infinities on the totem pole - Infinities at least gets N-canon references in the Holocron. Jaymach indicates these articles are from Wizards of the Coast, but I've seen no such evidence - the Wikipedia article on InQuest claims they're published by "Wizard Entertainment," a company *not* to be confused with WotC. Either way, such a crossover between two media giants without contractual agreements between the just two doesn't happen, so this is pretty clearly one of the many dream card articles that InQuest was notable for, that (as far as I know) never got formal permission to be made. Anyway, I think the existence of these articles paints pretty clearly that Havac may be right - these "ambiguous" articles are essentially no different from notable fanfics, and should get a single article for their content like our other articles on Star Wars stuff created by outsiders (i.e. fan works). jSarek 10:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that you are right about these articles not really being "ambiguous", though Jaymach and McEwok have a lot more to say on the matter. Regardless, a policy perhaps debating a future for ambig sources and articles should probably be brought off of this page, since it will encompass a very large area of the Wooki. Cull Tremayne 10:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we just disintegrate the people that came up with this violation of universes? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, as much as I love both universes, they are just not compatible. The line must be drawn here! KEJ 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)