Talk:SeaQuest DSV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Merger/redirection of ship/character articles and show article

I vote for all independent seaQuest DSV articles to remain separate. The show article would become far too long if all of it was incorporated into one. Furthermore, there are countless similar articles about fictional characters and elements concerning other shows on Wikipedia, many of which are far less developed than the "seaQuest" articles are, and yet, no one bothers to touch them.

The purpose of this encyclopedia is to further enhance it by elaborating on whatever we can, not by restricting it with one person (TTN), choosing to redirect them all back to a single article with the independent ones becoming lost, thus, weakening Wikipedia as a whole.

There's enough actual junk floating around on Wikipedia that deserves real attention, rather than focusing on some (if I do say so myself) intricately written articles regarding "seaQuest DSV." Try cleaning up the Star Trek: Voyager episode guide or something. Half of those article pages have ten words on them, tops; the "seaQuest" ones at least have substance to them.

If this issue insists on being persisted, then, feel free to enhance the existing "seaQuest" articles by elaborating and expanding them as much as possible. Kyle C Haight (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think the current article on SeaQuest DSV 4600 does not satisfy notability guidelines, the fact that Star Trek ships have separate articles of no relevance to this issue. However I disagree with the used methods, simply deleting and redirecting, stating merging should be done but making no actual effort to do so. The same goes for the new AfD, which in my eyes is a violation of WP:POINT. All articles should be kept for now and work should be undertaken to somehow integrate them.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what would the difference would be in the articles on the Star Trek ships as opposed to the article on the seaQuest DSV 4600; they're all fictional elements, one way or the other. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't, in my eyes. But the fact that those exist, doesn't mean they should exist and others should. An article on the USS Enterprise of the original series, movies and TNG will probably be notable enough as they have enough written about them. I doubt the same is true for seaQuest and yes, also other Star Trek ships. I'm against the proceedings of TTN however by simply redirecting without any prior discussion and then nominating for deletion when he doesn't get things done his way. As for the episodes, I think it would be better to have a List of seaQuest DSV episodes with very short plot summaries and possibly notable things to say. I've never been a fan of episode articles. I think the same could be done with the characters. As much as I love to read about seaQuest, I simply think these things do not meet notability. But rather than simply deleting there should have been made some effort to shape it into something useful.--Fogeltje (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the article again. Except for the heading "Design Specs" I think the rest can be deleted. Design specs could be merged into this article before the cast overview. The rest of the article is plot summary which can find a place in a List of Episodes. I'm copying the section I had in mind into the talk page here in the subheading below, in case the article gets deleted before we can agree what to merge. Finding citations for the facts mentioned (episode titles) would also greatly help.--Fogeltje (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content proposed to be merged

seaQuest is the brain child of Captain Nathan Bridger who designed the boat in the early 21st century, however, Bridger left the navy 3 years before construction on the ship was completed. Upon its completion, seaQuest was the largest submarine and deep submergence vehicle ever constructed, measuring 307.1 m from stem to stern with a crew of 88 military and 124 science personnel. The ship could travel at speeds up to 160 knots (295 km/h) and was propelled by twin fusion reactors. The seaQuest was coated in a genetically engineered bio-skin which remained completely inert against (most) marine bacteria and organisms with a crush depth of more than 9 km of water. The ship is equipped with a complement of standard torpedoes, as well as nuclear tipped SLBMs (believed to be named the Triton II), intercepts, sea to air missiles, state-of-the art laser banks, as well as a specialized "grapnel torpedo" which, when fired, would impact a target and allow the seaQuest to tow or retract.

The ship was also equipped with a series of WSKRS (Wireless Sea Knowledge Retrieval Satellites); small sensor probes that were remotely controlled by the ship's sensor chief. The WSKRS codenamed "Mother", "Junior", and "Loner", served as the "eyes and ears of seaQuest" and could relay telemetry data back to the ship miles away. In a pinch, the WSKRS could also be used as an emergency power supply and could be reconfigured for communication purposes. A special "Hyper-Reality Probe" was also part of the seaQuest's arsenal which allowed the operator to manually control the probe and conduct delicate repair operations or investigate various anomalies. The ship's communications buoy could also be detached to enable contact with surface bound vessels.

The ship was also equipped with a series of sea launch shuttles, as well as a series of speeder shuttles, a series of sea crab-class vehicles and eventually, a specialized, high-speed, one-man submersible named The Stinger by one of the designers, Lucas Wolenczak. In 2032, the ship was equipped with two high-speed spector-class sub-fighters; high speed submersibles capable of engagements up to speeds approaching 300 knots (554 km/h), comparable to (but not equal to) the Lysander-class sub-fighter engineered by Deon International.

seaQuest featured an emergency override called the "Dead Man's Codes"; in the event that the ship's crew was incapacitated or the ship was hijacked and taken off course, the codes could be used to bring the ship to any location on the globe by remote. The UEO Secretary General kept one set of the codes while another set was flash-fed into the computer banks and scrambled at random intervals.

Originally designed as a purely military vessel, the seaQuest underwent a refit in 2017 following the Livingston Trench Incident and the signing of the United Earth Oceans Organization charter.


I vote to leave them separate. And for TNN to stop redirecting/deleting them. If he thinks they can be adequately merged then merge them, don't JUST make a redirect. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
That is exactly my point, while I do think they fail the notability criteria, I strongly oppose his approach. Efforts should be focused on integration. His latest AfD for the articles is a clear violation of WP:POINT in my eyes. Sadly I think he will succeed. While AfD are supposed to be about argumentation, it usually comes down to the admin simply counting the keep and delete votes.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to thank you, Fogeltje, for actually expressing why you think certain articles should be merged, etc, rather than just redirecting them or deleting them or whatever the case may be; at least you back up your position with logical standpoints. To a certain degree, I agree as well. True, seaQuest is hardly as recognized as something like Star Trek, but, my entire stance on the issue was that so little has been written about seaQuest over the years, and given that the show has a pretty strong cult following (surely not as much as something like Dr. Who or Battlestar: Galactica or something), that it was high time that someone actually contribute something about the show that people who visit Wikipedia would be able to read and learn about, help them remember the show if they haven't seen in it in awhile, etc.
I would concede that probably the article on Dr. Wendy Smith could be condensed into a conglomerate article about the main characters of seaQuest. As I see, much like the article entitled List of recurring characters on seaQuest DSV, a similar article could be constructed which would encompass the regular characters, such as Commander Ford, Lt. Cmdr. Hitchcock, Darwin, Crocker, Krieg, etc. However, I would also maintain that the articles on Captain Bridger, Lucas, and Dr. Westphalen should remain separate, given that they were, in all honesty, the most important characters on the show.
As far as the ship article goes, I still believe it to be in the best interests to leave it as a separate article, in the interests of spacing. I believe that if we incorporate the seaQuest DSV 4600 information into the main article, it would cause the regular show article to become too long. What would be efficient would be to have a subsection in the regular article that links to the separate article about the ship. While you do make a good point that some of the ship history could be incorporated into the list of episodes, I personally think that the brief synopses of the episodes should stay that way in order to remain in line with similar list of episodes articles on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Kyle C Haight (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As much as I agree with you on a personal level, the separate articles will probably never satisfy WP:N. Captain Nathan Bridger simply isn't well known outside of the circle of seaQuest fans, as opposed to, for example, Captain James T. Kirk. They will end up deleted. That is why I advocate a temporary keep in the AfD discussions so we can properly merge them into a list. But keeping them indefinitely in the hopes of finding good sources is simply not possible, as one user already stated in one of the AfD discussions. As far as a separate article for the ship goes, I would like to see that as well but it will never survive an AfD, again concerning WP:N. For now, I'm against deletion so we can salvage the information we need. I really don't think we need the synopsis of episodes when describing the ship, only references to episodes where facts are stated. All plot information should go into a List of seaQuest DSV episodes where short plot synopsis for every episode will be provided. They shouldn't be lengthly but give an overal idea of what happened in that episode.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as seaQuest DSV 4600 goes I'd leave it. Less notable ships with less information (ie all the one time use star trek ships like USS Defiant (NCC-1764), Prometheus class starship etc or the stub sized articles like USS Voyager (Star Trek)) have been allowed to remain separate. This is to long to merge in the main article as it will either become to long or a lot of information would be lost. As far as importance, ALL episodes of the show took place on board. It was a very unique design for a submarine, it is long/detailed enough, and importantr to the show to warrant leaving it alone. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
The reason that that less notable Star Trek ships have articles does not mean they should have and seaQuest should have. Please see WP:WAX about this. I'm simply concerned about notability because I know that eventually it will get deleted. Again, the fact that not notable Star Trek ships exist is no reason, in fact they could be considered for deletion as well.--Fogeltje (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as the list of episodes go, does Wikipedia still allow photos (with fair-use tags, of course) for articles such as that? Kyle C Haight (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a small size photo to place with an episode would qualify for a fair use rationale, but don't pin me down on it.--Fogeltje (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not as my latest revision of the episode guide (with photos) has been reverted. I wonder why? Kyle C Haight (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As I told you on your talk page, images in an episode list, no matter how small, simply don't qualify under fair use. A picture of the DVD box set or something at the top of the article would be acceptable, but that's about it. I don't want to get into a thing with the episodes, but I can say with absolute certainty that you won't be able to keep the images in the list. If I don't remove it, someone else will, and they could pass 3RR indefinitely since it's a matter of fair use abuse. Besides, since you have episode articles (for now, at least), the list doesn't need images. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of seaQuest DSV vehicles

Why not create a "List of seaQuest DSV vehicles" page and merge the content on this page onto that one? That way we keep the information we have about seaQuest and can add things about the Marauder SSN, seaLuanch, Seaspeeder, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.59.87 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to do a "List of seaQuest DSV vehicles" eventually (gathering info and doing a rough draft for now on my pc), and I think there's still too much info on the ship itself to condense without losing a large amount or making one section ridiculously large. I do have an article on the design including info about the older/unused ideas (real world perspective) but am having difficulties finding it, half of my magazines are in storage and it is a 10 year old magazine now (I'm 99% sure it's a Star Log). Dr. Stantz (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea, it would help develop the seaQuest template on Wikipedia. I might suggest it be separated into several subgroups, such as seaQuest craft which could include the sub itself, the seaCrabs, the Launches, the Stinger, the subfighters, the WSKRs, etc. Another subgroup could be UEO vessels, like the DS9 shuttle, Hudson's hauler-type ship, the Navis-18, the Bridger program ship, etc. Another subgroup could be Enemy Vessels such as the Delta-4, the Lysander Class, the marauder, the Hyperion mothership, the rebel Kaden sub, etc. Kyle C Haight (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge from James Brody

There is nothing in the Brody article that shows he, as a character, is notable enough to justify his own article. It's just a rehash of plot elements, which fails WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Pairadox (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how would you put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrasfisher (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't; I don't think there's enough material to satisfy the criteria laid out in WP:WAF. But if you can such material, I'd be willing to reconsider. Pairadox (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice to see information on SeaQuest crew on Wikipedia, instead of having to go look from a lot of other sources. It would be easier if it was here. Cassandrafisher (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As was brought up in the "Bridger/Lucas/Westphalen Notability Debates", it would probably be prudent to create a conglomerate List of main characters on seaQuest DSV article, which would include the following:
  • Commander Jonathan Ford
  • Lt. Commander Katherine Hitchcock
  • Lieutenant Benjamin Krieg
  • Chief Manilow Crocker
  • Lieutenant Tim O'Neill
  • Sensor Chief Miguel Ortiz
  • Dr. Wendy Smith (existing article should be merged into this new one)
  • Lieutenant James Brody (see above)
  • Lieutenant Lonnie Henderson
  • Seaman Tony Piccolo
  • Dagwood
  • Captain Oliver Hudson
  • Lieutenant J.J. Fredericks
  • Darwin

That way, we can get all of the main seaQuest characters some coverage on Wikipedia, without stepping on the toes of the notability hounds. Bridger, Lucas, and Westphalen could be added to the list as well, but, linked off to their own separate articles (which I maintain should remain separate, given how important they were to the show). Kyle C Haight (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, Kyle.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
New article begun, please contribute, because, it's going to be a bear to tackle by myself. Kyle C Haight (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that rather than a link for each character to the subsection of that page, a single
Main article: List of main characters on seaQuest DSV
link at the top of the list would be better and more in line with MOS guidelines. The impression that's created by the individual links is that each character has their own article. Also, the template should be reduced and simplied in a similar manner. The purpose of navboxes is to move between articles, not provide a full list of characters. Pairadox (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Isn't the point of Nav boxes to help save time when looking foe articles? Dr. Stantz (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The nav box will do exactly that. There is no need to mention every character, only the two lists. Each list has table of contents, The only characters that should be present in the box are the ones with articles for themselves in my eyes.--Fogeltje (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)