Uhhhhhh....--TimPendragon 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I knew this article would cause this! I even put that itself in the article. Star Trek being a programme within it's own continuity is a massive central point to my own 1098-page file, and I wrote the article based on that soldier who died in Iraq, whose article I read yesterday. I know I haven't added the soldier, but I don't own the story myself, so I thought the author of that article could add that part. :) [User: Stripey].
- I'm sorry, but why do you cite your 1098-page article as if it was a valid source? We're talking about this one page article posted here, and this article is a complete and pointless mess of disconnected thoughts. Nominated for deletion. --Seventy 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Evidences of Star Trek existing within the Trek universe could be a valid (part of an) article, but I don't think this one is the best way to approach the subject. --TimPendragon 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- If this was half way well written it could maybe be passable, as it is it's just a jumble of factoids that is a pain to read, unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with most of the cited sources so don't really want to dive in myself. This page is redeemable, separated into actual in-universe history and a thorough explanation under background, and maybe under a less abstract name "In-universe Star Trek history" or something, but as it is, it's a mess. -- 8of5 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- On an unrelated and maybe none of my business angle; Stripey, you obviously have a name you wish to go by, why do you never sign in? -- 8of5 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Evidences of Star Trek existing within the Trek universe could be a valid (part of an) article, but I don't think this one is the best way to approach the subject. --TimPendragon 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Tim (Thomason). I still think the article should be retitled to Star Trek (in-universe) or something along those lines. --TimPendragon 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The reorg is an improvement, but I'm hesitant to call all these "in-universe", and more in the category of "breaking the fourth wall" stories. Just as long as we keep that stuff on this page, and don't stick it into the main articles (e.g., I don't want to see a "switched bodies with 20th century actor William Shatner" entry in Kirk's bio).--Emperorkalan 12:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the Roddenberry references, and definitely "Visit to a Weird Planet Revisited" are "fourth wall" stories, yes, but the Benny Russell stuff isn't. --TimPendragon 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(a) considering I deleted the entire article yesterday after reading Seventy's opting for it to be deleted less than a day after it existed, I'm surprised there's still an article here at all. (b) I am very impressed with the rearranged current article...even if I will still never interpret Research the way others do. (c) I have signed in, multiple times, but the computer does not seem to like me much and keeps reverting my name to stupid numbers (d) I'm sorry I mentioned my file. [User: Stripey].
- Uhm... without being logged-in and an administrator, you can't delete a page. As for research, articles on a wiki aren't done like a "research paper" where you draw your own conclusions, here we just report the "facts" as is. Make sense? --TimPendragon 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- (to Stripey) Hmmm... well there is a User:Stripey (User talk:Stripey) who edited back in July. If you lost or forgot your password, you might have to make a new username. On the other hand, you might not have cookies enabled, which you would need to log in.
- (to Tim) As for Research, I think Stripey is referring to their interpretation of the Strange New Worlds story "Research," which is the main source for information on the in-universe Roddenberry's Star Trek.--Tim Thomason 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)