Talk:treknobabble

treknobabble
This seems to fall foul of the Fictional universes exclusion to me, as does treknology below. Delete and maybe add to a new Appendix:Star Trek. — Carolina wren discussió 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. The word is never used in that fictional universe.  Think of it this way: the character Mr. Spock would never use the word "treknobabble". --EncycloPetey 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful. That's not true. The citations must be (I quote) "independent of reference to that universe" &mdash; not merely spoken by non-characters of the universe. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that EncycloPetey is right, and that you're misunderstanding his argument. The relevant sentence is this one:
 * Terms A&rarr;originating in fictional universes&larr;A which have three citations in separate works, but B&rarr;which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe&larr;B may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space. [emphasis removed]
 * EP is saying that (non-finite) clause A doesn't describe treknobabble: (since it doesn't originate in the Star Trek universe, but rather is an external reference to Star Trek itself), such that that entire section of the CFI doesn't apply. You are saying that clause B does, or may, describe treknobabble:. But since clause A doesn't, clause B is irrelevant. Do you see what I mean?
 * —Ruakh TALK 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that explains my argument in a more detailed way. We had a similar discussion over X-Phile:, which is another term pertaining to a particular TV program, but not originating within that fictional universe.  You can see Robert's opinion in the matter at Talk:X-Phile. --EncycloPetey 17:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per EncycloPetey. Exactly correct analysis. We're not talking about a tricorder or a lightsaber here. bd2412 T 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV and keep if cited as normal. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's now cited (so far as the usual CFI requires). bd2412 T 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Also, preëmptively RFV-passed. (Thanks for the cites, BD2412!) —Ruakh TALK 13:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)