Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Uniforms

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion given.--SB | T 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet Uniforms

Move to Memory Alpha. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete can't move to M-A b/c of licensing issues, but otherwise it's fancruft of unnecessary detail for WP.--Kchase T 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to one of the other articles about Starfleet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified original research.--Isotope23 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Its sourced and verified and certainly not original research. --Cat out 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment it is sourced now, but still Original research as Uncle G has stated below.--Isotope23 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  That statement is self conflicting. --Cat out 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, it's not. The article is directly citing images of the uniforms. An appropriate source would be an article discussing the uniforms. The standard for sources here is not Trek canon policy (i.e., "what is shown on screen"). The standard is published secondary sources. Please try to assimilate this concept. —ptk✰fgs 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  The offical policy is the use of published "primary (show itself - preferable) and secondary (tech manuals, interviews, etc...) sources. Other sources should be considered in the absence of primary & secondary or unless absolutely necesary.

  Furthermore the source in question is a secondary source. All those images are not from the show but how the artist drew them. They MAY be from a tech manual. I highly reccomend droping various star trek quotes because they do not fit in the discussion.

  --Cat out 18:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. --Cat out 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Uniforms (costumes) in star trek universe developed over time along with rank insignias.

  The change is visible on the show itself so original research is not an issue. There was significant change in uniforms with first two movies and later in tng. Even branch colors changed. The uniforms of the 29th century stafleet (as portrayed on voyager) were nothing like the ones used on the TNG enterprise.. yada yada yada...

  --Cat out 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, original research is an issue. As things stand, the only sources cited by this article are simple galleries on a web site of pictures of Starfleet uniforms (not even actual screenshots from the shows, note), sans any descriptive text at all and sans anything that supports statements such as "Skirts were authorized for women, however, these were optional and uncommon." made by this article. This article should cite far better sources, to indicate that this isn't a novel synthesis and analysis of pictures of Starfleet uniforms. Contrast this article with Starfleet ranks and insignia#References. Uncle G 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Hmmm.... Uniforms' colors and shapes are visible on the show. Picard does wear red unlike Kirk who wore yellow. In TNG yellow is the engineering & security divisions color. Skirts appeared very rarely on non TOS era series such as TNG or even on Voyager. Actual screenshots are visible throughout wikipedias character articles. I am not certain how to present screenshot info on the article since just in TNG there are like four different uniforms... (duty, dress, etc...)

  Comment, I think you misunderstand the concept of original research Cat. Yes the Uniforms' colors and shapes are visible on the show (and in the galleries you've linked)... but by creating an article describing these uniforms based on the pictures, you are performing an act of original research and is explicitly refered to in the WP:NOR policy "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments..."). My deletion reasoning stands as this is still original research and still has no sources that describe these uniforms.--Isotope23 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Sure there are. See any star trek screenshot that appear on the page or on wikipedia or on the web. See Jean-Luc Picard and James T. Kirk and then tell me if the uniforms changed at all. My primary source is on screen appearances. Anything else is unoffical or semi-official. You are unsatisfied with the official source. --Cat out 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  We could argue about this all day... but I again point you to WP:NOR; writing an article based on screen appearances of the uniforms is original research... It's not a primary source. I have no issue with the officiality of the sources, but you need to find a primary source that actually has published a uniform comparison for this to be an acceptible and sourced article.--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Agreed. Let's not confuse canon policy with WP:V/WP:NOR. —ptk✰fgs 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  True, but completely ignoring official publication (the show itself) and relying on other sources sounds like a very very bad idea to me. --Cat out 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Article does need better citation (just like all articles), I am not arguing about that. But original research means that I and other contributor(s) are making it all up which isn't the case. Furhermore tha article has only been around for like a day so I do not think it is prudent to expect proper citation.

  --Cat out 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, Again, I think you misunderstand the concept of original research as it relates to Wikipedia. Original research does not mean "made up". It means that contributors have crafted an article that is not based on external sources... it is in fact based on their own research into a topic. If you can find an external website that describes these uniforms in detail, this would be a perfectly acceptible article, but as it stands, basing these descriptions off of images or viewing the show is expressly prohibited by the no original research policy. Furthermore, I don't agree with your contention that we cannont expect proper citation because the article has only been around for a day. The article should have never been created without proper citation. I speak only for myself here, but I'm not a fan of the concept of letting an article sit out in the main space unsourced while we let the creators try to find sources that they should have been using to create the article. That is what we have sandboxes for.--Isotope23 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Please mass afd practicaly all stub pages out there on wikipedia. Beacuse that is what you are suggesting. --Cat out 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  And violate WP:POINT? No, I don't think so...--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft. Recury 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying costumes werent worn on the show? How can I cite sources then? Screen shots of characters on wikipedia are evidence enough. --Cat out 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes That's exactly what we're saying. What we're not saying is "this is irrelevant, unencyclopedic information." If you really want, go to Memory Alpha; I'm sure you can make something like this there. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Please do not order people off of wikipedia. Its rude and incivil.

  Topic is notable enough to have its article. Is it cruft to write about US military ranks, and rank insignias?

  How about articles related to Fashion (Category:Fashion)? All cruft? This is what it's really about... Star trek fashion... The creators of the show have said that "sex appeal" on TOS was an important factor. For instance, with ultra short mini skirts they appealed the men and with repetive kirk fleshy shots they appealed the women. (man 60's were simple)

  --Cat out 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Reply I didn't order anyone off Wikipedia, and "incivil" isn't a word; at least not in English. I suggested that you can take this information to a more appropriate venue - Memory Alpha. Don't take it personally, and don't act like this is some fight between you and me. Do you honestly not understand the difference between US military ranks and Starfleet Uniforms? Are you telling me they're equally encyclopedic? I don't even know what "the creators of the who have said that 'sex appeal' on TOS was an important factor" is supposed to mean. The article does not deserve to be here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  I and dictionary.com (which sources Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) disagree with you over the status of the word "incivil".

  I do not contribute to other wikis aside from wikipedia with the exeption of our sister sites such as wikimedia commons. I hence do not care what happens to memory alpha. Please do not suggest "move" to non-foundation operated sites in the future, at least to me.

  Of course there are differences between starfleet ranks and US naval ranks however they are fundementaly simmilar. The starfleet ranks were derived from the US mil ranks which I believe were derived from british ranks. Notability is a binary concept on wikipedia. Something is either encyclopedic or it isnt. Suggesting that a topic is superior to another is a breach of WP:NPOV..

  The approach to costumes on TOS and TNG were significantly different. Picard was bald for instance. "sex apeal" returned with seven of nine and later t'pol. This is only one of the interesting issues that shaped star trek costumes on different serries which can be covered on this article.

  --Cat out 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Koavf, I voted delete above, and I still must agree with Cool Cat that your comment was too dismissive. Cat's not some crazed fan, but a prolific contributor to lots of other articles on wikipedia.--Kchase T 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, sure it's cruft, but so what? ReverendG 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; I voted keep at first, but even this short article is long on detail that would only be of interest to devoted fans - that is, fancruft. Gazpacho 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think "CRUFT" is a deletion criteria... Why does Gothic fashion exist then? It is of interest to "devoted fans" only...

  No, it's also of interest to, e.g., parents and schoolteachers. Many users consider fancruft to be indiscriminate collection of info. Gazpacho 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Hmmm. In that context pedophilia, George W. Bush, F-14 Tomcat, Dalek, and Quantum Mechanics (random list of articles) should be deleted too. No school teacher, or parent would be ever interested in any of those topics just like they would not care about this article or Star Trek. --Cat out 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  FYI that isn't accurate and doesn't begin to make sense anyway. Gazpacho 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  So article isn't perfect... The correct action is to improve it rather that delete. Article was just started. Don't expect featured status a day after an article is created. Besides we encourage detailed coverage in articles not discourage it. Starfleet uniforms are complicated enough to require an article or two. See: [1]

  --Cat out 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, an article or two on Memory Alpha. Gazpacho 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR; as noted above, all sources are just picture galleries. Sandstein 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yea, uniforms require that. Text is just inadequate to compare the change in uniforms... --Cat out 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, trekcruft. wikipediatrix 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and cruft. Indrian 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cat Computerjoe's talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Summarising the hole thing...

  1. On Star Trek, only on screen appearances are considered cannon after deducing camera errors. All websites and/or books fail WP:V. It is original research to relly on external sites rather than screenshots.
  2. It is not cruft to say that since the 1960's Star Trek uniforms have changed. A very simple comparasion of uniforms between James T. Kirk (predominantly yellow uniform) and Jean-Luc Picard (predominantly red and black uniform) or even Jonathan Archer (predominantly blue uniform) shows the difference.

  --Cat out 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. So styles have changed, big whoop! are we going to see Costumes of Baywatch, M*A*S*H Uniforms, Hogan's Heroes Uniforms, and others. Eek! Carlossuarez46 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The color change from TOS to TNG and DS9 is of note, is mentioned in the DS9 Episode Trouble with Tribbles when they go back in time. Someone may wonder why the colors changed and find this article. Could use better sources, but I'd bet they are out there. JPotter 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason to delete:

1. I really don't think this falls under original research. If there were verifiable references that described the uniforms for each of the series, these references could be used to create a page that similarly describes the uniforms on each series, even if each reference described the uniforms of only one series. Collecting various material on related topics is not OR. Consider an article like 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake: many different sources are used without constituting OR. There may be some elements of OR in this article, but these can be removed without deleting the whole article.
2. Lack of references is not generally used as a reason to delete article on non-controversial topics.
3. Fancruft is an ill-defined expression of opinion. –RHolton≡– 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - perfectly encyclopaedic topic, the screencaps are very helpful in communicating the changes. I'm inclined to say "yes, it's fancruft, but that's no reason to delete it". And it's not really not *that* trivial after all. Stevage 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• This article is very poor. However, a good article on the topic could be written: perhaps at Costuming in Star Trek instead. There are various secondary sources (the "Making Of" books and the Star Trek periodicals) that could be used for this. Morwen - Talk 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment and I agree with your first point "If there were verifiable references that described the uniforms for each of the series, these references could be used to create a page that similarly describes the uniforms on each series...", but nobody is producing such references... All that is being provided is picture gallaries and as I've noted exhaustively above this violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's what i said, isn't it? I'm making a list of possible leads and stuff at Talk:Starfleet Uniforms. Morwen - Talk 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what you said, but the point is that until such references are proved to exist, this is originial research. I still don't see anything at Talk:Starfleet Uniforms that suggests such sources exist and are forthcoming... and that is the crux of the problem. Finding such sources and referencing them in the article would at least demonstrate there is an attempt here to put this article in compliance with the WP:NOR policy. Right now this article clearly violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

this book is merely one of many examples. There is also an extensive Star Trek behind the scenes literature, including a book called "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry (released back in the 1960s, historically a very early "making of" book). There are equivalant volumes for other Star Treks: certainly for TNG and DS9, and apparently there is a "Making of Star Trek: the Motion Picture" thingy. A regular monthly Star Trek magazine has published in the United Kingdom since 1995, and features many many interviews. The problem here is not the absence in reality of sources, it's just that they're not being used - the article is in any case garbage as it is presenting an entirely in-universe perspective.Morwen - Talk 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment, now we are getting somewhere. I'm not familiar with these books offhand, but if they contain an actual discription of the uniforms, that would be a source, they could be referenced in a bibliography (meeting WP:V), and this article would no longer be original research. I suggest adding these sources to the article (and any others you are aware of), using reference tags to show which uniform descriptions are based on sources as opposed to original research... when I get a chance this weekend I will look into those you've listed. I'm not concerned with the quality of the article (it can always be tagged for cleanup) just that it meets the big 2 policies of verification and no original research.--Isotope23 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

morwen I am sorry but almost all of the books are considered semi-cannon including that one. Often certain "facts" about the series conflict in such books such as in rank insignias. They can be used as sources but the Screen appearances is the only accepeted cannon and is fundemenntaly superior to all sources. Its really obvious what color is picards uniform. --Cat out 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please spare me this 'canon' blithering. Where is the canon that "Chief Medical Officers typically wore a blue overcoat in addition?" If I remember correctly we have one datapoint here: Beverley Crusher. I can't remember if Pulaski wore one. In any case, that sentence is entirely speculation. "Skirts were authorized for women" is another speculative sentence : all we could fairly say from observation is that "skirts were seen worn by both men and women in season 1, but rarely appeared after this". Please read WP:FICT. Morwen - Talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I already said citation would be nice. It might be prudent to point out on what episode a spesific issue is covered. The red surgical uniform was worn on a spesific episode for the first time, thats proper citation. Same goes with the dress uniforms and etc. All I am saying is that I am not required to use a written source. I do not like this discussion of article content on this AFD pag, please take it to the articles talk page. --Cat out 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Watching TV is not original research. 169.139.222.5 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, but writing an article about what you saw on TV is...--Isotope23 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  No it isn't. The TV show is the primary source. Not everything that appears on a show is avalible in written media as copyrights for one prohibit it. Orriginal requires a work to be published, the TV shows are published. And in the case of Star Trek it was published internationaly. This is ridiclous. --Cat out 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  You obviously have no experience in academia. Original research is the creation of a secondary source from primary sources. Primary sources include letters, journals, newspapers, and television shows. Orignial research is what forms the basis for the majority of mongraphs and journal articles and the like on a variety of topics. An encyclopedia article, on the other hand, is drawn primarily from secondary sources. There is nothing wrong, to be sure, with using primary sources to further inform an existing article, but the basis of that article should be information that has already been synthezised in a secondary source. This article comes entirely from watching the television show and reporting what the article creator observed. It is factual and verifiable, but it is still an original work of scholarship that therefore violates policy. When someone writes a book or journal article or research paper on Star Trek uniforms, then it will fulfill the requirement of no original research. Indrian 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Academia? Of course. That must be it. One requires a PHD to tell that Picards uniform is red... --Cat out 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Or not be color-blind, anyway. --Cyde Weys 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Or blind all together. :P --Cat out 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, User:Cool Cat, I again implore you to read WP:NOR, it is very clear and concise regarding this ("Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy") The show is published, but these descriptions of the uniforms are not. You need to find a written source for this.--Isotope23 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, the application of WP:NOR is entirely invalid, because nobody is disputing the content of this article. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Organizing information found in primary sources, such as a television show, is explictly permited by WP:NOR. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." - SimonP 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A perfectly legitimate article (albeit a bit Star Trek specific) that, unlike most "fancruft", cites its sources quite well. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Fancruft, but notable fancruft. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. --Kjetil_r 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This does not meet the standards of non-notability for deletion. Also, the suggested Transwiki to Memory-Alpha is impossible because they use an utterly incompatible non-commercial license. Cyde Weys 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and write out the contents of Wikipedia:No original research until you understand it. —Phil | Talk 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen worse cruft, why is everyone always picking on Star Trek?--152.163.101.5 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there's an encrypted Klingon subroutine in the encyclopedia. The series on Starfleet uniforms at Memory Alpha basically makes this look like a substub anyway: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. —ptk✰fgs 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Umm.. Thats like saying we should delete President because www.whitehouse.gov covers it better. --Cat out 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, not really. If we had an entire wiki devoted to the presidency, then that would apply. —ptk✰fgs 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  In that context if there is a wiki devoted to covering any topic all wiki pages to that should be deleted. What kind of an encyclopedia would that be? Hard drives are cheep man... We are talking about pennies here. --Cat out 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Actually... no, not even then. We're not talking about deleting Star Trek or even Star Trek: The Animated Series. Not even in the mirror universe is this AFD comparable to an AFD on President. It's more like deleting an article about one of Michael Dukakis' interns. We only need so many articles about Trek, and without any sources to bear on the notability of the uniforms themselves, this just isn't one of them. —ptk✰fgs 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  We do need articles explaining all human knowlege which of course includes Star Trek, Presidency and even GJ 832 (See Encyclopedia). I find your logic flawed. I also do not understand your referance to the mirror universe supposed to mean. Please do not talk in riddles. --Cat out 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  The uniforms of Star Trek characters do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Star Trek does; that's not what I'm disputing. Sources showing the uniforms aren't sufficient to establish it. The question here is: "What is significantly notable about the costumes used in Star Trek?" Changing color and design over a period of decades is no big deal. What sets this apart from costuming in other productions? We need reliable sources commenting on this topic first. —ptk✰fgs 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Again I dont follow your logic at all... Same anology applies to the GJ 832, just another Star... --Cat out 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  We're not talking about GJ 832. Why are starfleet uniforms notable? —ptk✰fgs 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  The correct question is "Are starfleet uniforms notable". And the answer to that is "Yes". Notability is a binary concept something is either notable or it is not. --Cat out 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not a very good article yet, but it clearly can be improved into one. Possibly move to a title like Uniforms in Star Trek or the like, which would make it more clear from the title that it's a reference to Trek. --FOo 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The existance of Memory Alpha is in my view prima facia evidence that the topic has enough intrest to keep. Dalf | Talk 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete unless better sourced. The televised appearance of the uniforms is a primary source. If we comment on that, that makes us a secondary source, which is explicitly not the purpose of an encylcopedia. We must be a tertiary source, which means we must cite secondary sources, of which there is only one right now. The fact that this needs better sources is incontrovertible. Powers ^T 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Umm wikipedia policy strictly allows me to rely on primary sources and/or secondary sources (It actualy "recommends" primary sources). NOR just means I can't be the primary source (aka I cant invent a new uniform in this case).

  I can use data from the CIA world factbook or US Census office which are primary sources. A secondary source would be CNN revieweing the census.

  --Cat out 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, I think you are still misunderstanding. An appropriate reference source for an article about the costumes in a television show is an article about the costumes in the television show. Original research is writing that article yourself. Without any sources discussing the uniforms, this is necessarily original research. —ptk✰fgs 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Alright, if you are going to dispute that picard uniforms is red do so, if not dont waiste my time. I will not cite sources for that as my source is the show. On every episode he wore a red coloured uniform at a point.

  Hmm.. So you are saying that if there is no secondary source explicitly stating that US populution had increased, I cant say so; even if the primary source's (US census office) data shows the increase. There is a Wikipedia:Common sense essay. --Cat out 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Would you please reformulate your position without using analogies? It is a waste of time for me to to respond to a position that is built on comparing things that are not related. Starfleet Uniforms does not cite any verifiable sources. It is an article based on direct observation of the topic. That makes it original research. This has nothing to do with the census. This has nothing to do with whether Picard's uniform is red. I would suggest that you start looking for articles discussing uniforms in Star Trek. Your position of "look at the show, look at the uniforms, it's true" is not persuasive. —ptk✰fgs 16:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Just watch the show and then dispute anything presented and I am cool with that. Currently you are requiring sources (for stuff that should be common knowlege for anyone watching the show) without disputing anything which is strange to say the least... You (plural) are considering the show itself to be an unnaceptable resource which is not inline with WP:NOR. --Cat out 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Please stop setting up straw men. If the article said "Captain Picard wore a red uniform", you're right; that would be allowed. But 1) the article does not say that—it generalizes to say that all command officers wore red; and 2) it's not encyclopedic without some kind of analysis of how the uniforms changed and why. Perhaps add some commentary on how the various uniforms were criticized or lauded -- but make sure someone else said it, and you reference his (or her) analysis. Powers ^T 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Whois this staw men?

  Yes all command officers wore red. Engineering and security people wore gold. Science officers wore teal/gren/blue (whetever you want to call it). Are you disputing that? Just provide one instance of a command officer not wearing red (including admirals).

  Why did uniforms changed? Now that will require some sort of citation, and for my delight bbcs interview with the uniform designer gives me that.

  Division colors are common knowlege for anyone watching the show. If you are going to dispute anything, do so on the article talk page and argue your reasoning. Or else do not waiste my time. Lots of details can be aquired directly from the show. Also on the DS9 episode with tribbles division colors explicitly mentioned.

  --Cat out 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Cool Cat's confirmation that this is textbook WP:OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  I do not recall confirming anything. --Cat out 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Division colors are common knowlege for anyone watching the show" and "The red surgical uniform was worn on a spesific episode for the first time, thats proper citation" and so on, information obtainable only from a primary source. That's original research. Find a book which discusses the subject, or a magazine article; those would be secondary sources and admissible. Relying on primary sources to extend or reference material abstracted from secondary sources would be ok (i.e. you can have the pictures to illustrate what the hypothetical secondary source says). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Whatever the circumstances, I dislike to be treated like an idiot. As for the WP:NOR thing, I am sick of making the same response. --Cat out 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Concise and reasonable. This doesn't seem excessive at all. And how is it original research to look at something on TV? Imagine if we applied that standard to books. Geesh. Gamaliel 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.