Appendix talk:Star Trek/beaming up

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Appendix:Star Trek/beaming up

Weren't these (appendix subpage pseudoentries) supposed to have been deleted by the creator? DCDuring TALK 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you got "by the creator" from, but we did vote that this is not to be the standard format for appendices. --Yair rand 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was one of our good-citizenship norms. If not, it should be. I try to clean up any systematic messes of mine. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or you could merge the subpages of Appendix:Star Trek yourself. --Daniel 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

These entries got confused when Daniel Carrero moved them into the appendix namespace; Ruakh move beam up back into the main namespace but didn't move the three inflected forms back, which I have just done now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Well, thanks for fixing it. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But what about all the other ones?

• Appendix:Star Trek/beam up
• Appendix:Star Trek/Borg
• Appendix:Star Trek/dilithium
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingonese
• Appendix:Star Trek/phaser
• Appendix:Star Trek/redshirt
• Appendix:Star Trek/Starfleet
• Appendix:Star Trek/Star Trek
• Appendix:Star Trek/transporter
• Appendix:Star Trek/Trekker
• Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie
• Appendix:Star Trek/USS
• Appendix:Star Trek/Vulcan
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon#French

-- DCDuring TALK 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And other detritus of the fictional universes (incompletely categorized, so a bit hard to find. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that some of these will meet CFI! Daniel C moved a lot of terms originating in fictional universes without checking that they might meet CFI, which is a bit dubious, and I'd have thought contrary to his interests anyway. For example transporter is used in more than one franchise, isn't it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The way transporter was defined[1], it looked like a term used only in context of Star Trek. Either just removing the "star trek" context label, or moving the whole sense to an appendix, or both, would be good ways to improve the entry. Accuracy is in line with my interests. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DCDuring, knowing what are the unconverted appendices is not so difficult: you could just have asked me. These would be the children of Appendix:Pokémon, Appendix:Star Trek, Appendix:Star Wars, Appendix:Chip's Challenge, Appendix:Harry Potter, Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien, Appendix:The Simpsons, Appendix:Farscape and Appendix:Brave New World.

Good examples of already converted appendices are Appendix:Haruhi Suzumiya, Appendix:DC Comics and Appendix:The Legend of Zelda. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)