Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:RussianShips

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
 * If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
 * If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
 * If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

Talk page discussion
Just to be clear, this was intended to be a template for spacecraft with Russian names, not just those with a known Russian origin. —MJBurrage(T•C) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I have to ask why we even need this in the first place. We don't have one for the numerous ships with British names, such as the USS Essex or the USS Hood. We don't have any for Chinese names, like the USS Tian An Men. I really don't see a need for a template for Russian names. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it together because it struck me as interesting (and I found more than I had expected which I also found interesting). As for why Russian might be more notable than other languages, their contributions to space exploration, and being the other half of the space race spring to find. While British ship names are probably too common (and in English), I do think such a template for Chinese named ships would be interesting as well. —MJBurrage(T•C) 09:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find either of those all that compelling as in-universe reasons to have a list. I'd also remind you that the big Russian space accomplishments took place two centuries before the earliest series. This sounds like it would be better served by a list on your user page, or something. Creating templates based just on the nation or language of origin of a name is going to clog up articles quickly. It's one thing to have these navtemplates for classes of ships, or something like that, but I feel that this is really going too far. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cobra. A list of "Russian-influenced" starship names might be a nice meta information to have somewhere - but creating a nav template for it seems like a bad idea. There are dozens of other templates that could be created in this vein: named after men, women, US navy ships, earth historic battles, cities, places, rivers - if we start doing this, we'd end up with a huge pile of templates on our starship articles - which don't really serve the purpose of letting someone navigate through similarly themed articles. A list in the background section of Russia seems to be a better idea. -- Cid Highwind 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I could easily see "Russian named spacecraft" as a category instead. I created it as a nav box because that seemed to be the precedent on Memory Alpha. (Although as I look closer now those nav boxes may be limited to ships of a similar type.) —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't see that instead. An in-universe list on an in-universe article would be a perfectly good application of this information. See Greek mythology, for example. --Alan 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But half the point of an computerized database such as Memory Alpha is the correlations and cross-links that hypertext makes possible. I.E. from each of these ships it would be informative to have some kind of connection to the others.  Simply listing them on say the Russian language page is an interesting addition there, but does not add information to each of the ship pages involved.  Nor would it help someone who had the same question I did after reading one of the ship pages (I.E. what other craft in canon had Russian names.)  Is that not exactly what categories are for? Also how is such a list not in-universe?  They all have Russian names in universe. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Cid's idea of putting this information on the Russia page. If I was looking for information on Russian ships, that's where I would start. It's a slippery slope to have templates like this, as it makes it harder to say no to the next one.--31dot 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already conceded that a nav box was not the best approach, but what about a category? —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose such a category, you could do so on the suggestion page, but I would oppose such a category, first because of the slippery slope it would create, as I stated already. Also, the category is not "in universe" because characters/governments in Star Trek do not categorize ships or ship names that way.  Since MA is written from the POV of the future, and not now, such a category would not be in the universe of Trek.
 * We do, however, have pages about things which originate from particular Earth regions(Japanese, Russian, etc) which would be better places to have a list of such references.--31dot 20:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the ships names are in-universe, a category like "Russian named spacecraft" is entirely in-universe. Since there has never been a real in-universe database we can search, there is no basis for a claim about how Starfleet would organize such a database.  On top of that we already have out-of-universe articles and categories here at Memory Alpha.  In Summary the in-universe or out-of-universe nature of a category has nothing to do with its appropriateness.
 * Rather the utility of the project, and whether the category improves that utility to the projects users is the issue. If a list of Russian (or Chinese, etc.) named ships is interesting, than its utility is increased by being connected to the ship articles on said list.  (Which is the whole point of categories in a database.)
 * I.E. All of these ships have something interesting in common, the exact point of a nav-box or category. —MJBurrage(T•C) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the only out-of universe articles here are the ones about the production staff and actors.
 * I, as well as others, have addressed the "utility" argument by saying that it is not useful if it leads us down a slippery slope.--31dot 17:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Category suggestion
I have proposed a related category at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. I do not think the slippery slope is a significant issue due to the topic's close association to one half of the space race, and therefore truly significant to the Federation's past and space exploration's origins. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But has that significance ever been made in-universe? I still feel tis is more about personal interest of an editor than in-universe relevance. Not saying that there is anything wrong with personal interest, it is a great thing to have, but I don't feel that it adds relevance to this template or category. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion rationale
This has already been discussed [above] and MA:CS, and it would seem that the popular consensus would be to post this for deletion. --Alan 01:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Delete, for the reasons stated on those pages.--31dot 01:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin resolution

 * Deleted, this was pretty much resolved before it was even posted for deletion. --Alan 13:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)