Talk:IXS Enterprise

Page removal

• This is both not noteable and dumb. I propose that this page be removed.

• Scientists and artists have worked on this concept. It is the result of hundreds of hours of work, that could be the first baby step to the future of civilization. Some day, this page will serve as a historical account of how things started to take shape. Of course, if anyone has any way of showing that this is indeed not notable and dumb, arguments will always be considered. Capilleary (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• You did not even propose a reason for it being "not noteable" and "dumb." Either provide an actual, helpful insight or you will not be taken seriously. Copulative (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do you mind at least providing a reason for your statements about the article? I'm open to any valid arguments. Thank you. Sabhansali (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• why on earth or indeed the universe should this be deleted? - it is neither inaccurate - nor is it not notable and nor is it dumb - please enlighten us with the reasons why you think this is so?

Maybe because none of this has been verified experimentally, that NASA has given the so-called project little or no support, and this article is only here due to Trekkies sinking to any depths to support their filth and their lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.215.67 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture

• Can a picture be added to this? It would really help conceptualize this craft to readers. The only reason I can think of a picture not having been added already is because of licensing for the official images. Is this true? If so, let's figure out a fair-use solution. Astrobotanical (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictures are subject to copyright. Unless the author provides materials according to Wikimedia Commons License, we can't put any part of that artwork. Capilleary (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What? There are lots of non-free images on Wikipedia, that are not materials provided by the authors. They are usually scaled down to 240 pixels wide or so so it serves in use as an in-page thumbnail. I will vote for the nomination for deletion of this article if it does not contain any illustrations. It really has so little information, and the information cannot be conveyed without an illustration. Last time I checked, using a scaled down version of a non-free image is allowed to illustrate the article, especially if an image is deemed necessary. Looks like multiple people now think this article is "empty" without any visualization. Check Wikipedia policies because you are incorrect, Capilleary. If policy were as you state, then the ONLY articles to have images are those in the public domain. That is not the case. Let's make something of this article or remove it. You can go off and try and keep every pixel of imagery off another page. Last time I checked there are lots of articles on video games, films, and other media with scaled down non-free images! oh no better find them since according to you every one is against policy. I'm beginning to get tired of bashing heads on this website especially with image-o-phobes. Cody-7 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

One has now been added under fair use. Jakob (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Category placement

• I have reverted the change made by Bearcat, about placing the article in the Arts category, because this concept spacecraft has found its popularity thanks to the art created by Mark Rademaker (see links below the article). This is, after all, a combination of Concept Art, with science, while the spacecraft itself, with its name and everything, is art before all else. I undid the changes because the comment said "category of unexplained relevance". This, I hope, explains it. If you have any suggestions on how to make it better - please step forward. Capilleary (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Arts is not for every individual thing that might be "arts"-related, such as individual arts centres or individual arts projects; it is only for extremely general, broad aspects of the arts, while anything else belongs in a more specific subcategory or not at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I see what you mean. What about Category:Science in art? I think this would be appropriate. If you agree, make the edit. Capilleary (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)