Talk:USS Surak

USS Surak
I'm confused: is this page up for deletion (or at least deletion vote)? User:Ben Sisqo originally posted a change that looks like he wanted to bring the page up for deletion, but eventually made an edit which did not include the tag. Then, User:Shran puts the tag back up.

In an earlier version of this page, Ben posted the below quote:
 * Not canon, shouldn't have been created without a source. If we can't speculate in articles about people then we definitely can't create entire PAGES based on nothing but speculation.

However, as Ben's summary for a recent edit to the article states, he didn't see the entire article before posting his deletion intentions, and he subsequently reversed the deletion notice. He also promptly removes the quote above from this page. So that leaves Shran's edit that brought back the deletion tag: if it's on behalf of Ben (as Shran currently states on the article), then I don't think Ben still intends to go through with the deletion process.

In any case, if the article is up for deletion, I vote keep. There are many other classes of vessels which did not have any canon-based source to back up its existence directly, except for the naming convention referred to in the USS Surak article. For example: Wells class, Sequoia class, even Sovereign class. As long as the inference reference is clear and visible, these pages should stay. -Intricated 06:07, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm confused just reading that all. Wasn't there recently a vote on some other ship that was non-canon? I remember the IRW D'deridex was non-canon, but there was a Federation one like this too I think. Maybe he saw the other one was kept, and Shran does a lot of reverting (usually for better), so that might just be a misunderstanding. Keep either way. --Schrei 06:11, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Archived -- This was already discussed when somebody nominated the USS Cheyenne and all related prototype Federation starships, which this ship falls under (see talk:USS Cheyenne). I pointed this fact out to Ben moments after he posted this page for deletion and that is, presumably, why he removed his nomination and the deletion boilerplate. I do not understand why it was reinserted, once again, on his behalf after he removed it and when you want to keep it??? Either way, the verdict on the Cheyenne stands, for this and all Federation prototype vessels and the nomination is more-or-less void. --Alan del Beccio 06:19, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Solutions for prototypes
I rewritten the background section for this ship, which should hopefully indicate, beyond a doubt that this ship was not mentioned but is legitimate. If it is acceptable, it can be made into a template and placed on the other prototype ship classes of similar status. --Alan del Beccio 06:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Perhaps directly mentioning prototype somewhere would help, as so many other inferred prototypes have done.  Also, would it be feasible to create a list of all Federation ships that have inferred existences, just as a reference? i.e. List of assumed Federation prototype ships (well something more catchy!) - Intricated 06:52, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Prototype is essentially that page, it just needs to be expanded, and perhaps subsectioned into mentioned or unmentioned, or maybe not at all. Im really not sure it matters, that's the glory of clicking links and reading pages. --Alan del Beccio 07:12, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)