Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praxis effect

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect if a suitable target is identified. RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis effect

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Praxis effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article belongs in a Star Trek dictionary. All mentions of this term are in passing. Furthermore, judging from what I was able to find, this is not even the main definition of the term. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Would this link for the French source work for you? I found it in this Google books search, where Google scholar left me none the wiser. Daranios (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I get is a pop up saying "Keine Leseprobe verfügbar". Do you get a page view? I see this book, in few editions, on Google Books, but each instance is "No preview". If you can access the relevant page(s), could you try to summarize what is in them? A big concern I have is that while the special effect itself may be notable, we have an OR name and an OR connection (saying that Star Trek invented it). This needs better sources to be proven. Lastly, please note that the book in question is from 2017; we may be dealing with the WP:CITOGENESIS here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As shown by the page by Paul Ens linked below, the suggestion that Star Trek invented the effect dates back to 1997 (the same year the Star Wars Special Editions were released), five years before Phil Plait's book and eleven years before the Wikipedia article. Gildir (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yes, I see the page view, seems to be a country thing. Drat, the phrasing does not completely exclude citogenesis after all. The page features an image of the effect from Star Trek VI and says according to Google translator "...the massive shock wave of a planet destroyed at the start of Star Trek VI, a graphic process also immediately baptized (Praxis Effect). It will be found in many intergalactic blockbusters (Star Gate, Star Wars ep. IV and IV special edition 1997)". It also lists the explosions and deflagrations of the film as contributing to "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country even became the perfect example of the early 1990s digital effects film". Oh yeah, and that the effect was done by ILM/Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Division. I think that's it.
So we have a reliable secondary source using the name. While this cannot rule out citogenesis, as the alternative that the neologism guideline suggests, to "use a title that is a descriptive phrase", I think it's less awkward to go with "Praxis Effect" (even rather than "Praxis effect"?) based on this source. And let the future worry about proving or disproving citogenesis. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Setting the citogenesis aside (since it, by itself, is secondary to other issues), how big is the description of this effect in that source? How many sentences? Does it meet SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, I think there's not more than what I've described: The picture of the effect, the two sentences I've provided in translation which include the name. Two sentences describing that ILM/Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Division got into Star Trek, including doing the special effects for Star Trek VI (which included the Praxis Effect). And one sentence of praise for these special effects, which I have translated, which is followed by a list of the types of special effects including "intergalactic explosions, blasts, ..." which should include the one we are discussing here. So, if you want to count, you can go from two to six sentences + the image, depending on how you want to count. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: Les images de synthèse au cinéma does contain the name of the effect, so I think this should lay neologism concerns to rest, even though I have to say that this source is from 2017, so the Wikipedia article predates that book. It is by Armand Colin, which seem legitimate enough to me. The treatment there is quite short, but I think it tells who created the effect and coined the term! (But I am not firm enough to understand completely, maybe someone has the time to type into Google translator). tells us where the effect comes from (film and company), where the name comes from, that it was influential. So if this together is seen as too short for WP:GNG, I have no great aversion to a merge - though I wouldn't know where. But I think this should not be deleted, as the effect seems legitimate according to the source already in the article, no matter the concerns about the name. In addition I have found this CBR article, which has a paragraph on the effect. Now I am fuzzy again on the reliability of CBR. If it counts, we should have no problem with WP:GNG any more. Daranios (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few things I found by Googling "star wars a new hope death star praxis ring added":
The Most Controversial Changes to the 'Star Wars' Saga (published in 2018, ten years after the Wikipedia article) states that the "explosion ring has become known as the Praxis effect for its use in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Ray Hardgrit's Sci-Fi Adventures: Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, a blog post from 2017, refers to "an unnecessary Praxis effect shock wave". 7 Excellent Changes George Lucas Made to the 'Star Wars' Saga (published in 2016) uses the term "Praxis effect" without even mentioning Star Trek VI (it refers to "something called the Praxis effect"). 12 Times Star Wars Failed At Basic Science, also from 2016, refers to "that infamous Praxis ring of energy expanding outwards", with the words "Praxis ring of energy" linked to the Wikipedia article. How Much Money Has Every Star Wars Film Made?, from 2016, mentions "a praxis [lower case!] ring, an effect made fun of in numerous satire videos and images."
Top 10 Worst Changes Made to Star Wars, from 2011, refers to "a Praxis halo" and does mention Star Trek VI by name. Weekend Roundtable: Worst 'Star Wars' Special Edition Changes, a blog post from 2011, refers to "the addition of a Praxis ring (lifted directly out of 'Star Trek VI')". The Praxis effect: Star Wars > Star Trek was published in 2010; the link to the full article at Shadowlocked is a dead link. Science Says Star Wars Blows Up Better Than Star Trek, from 2010, discusses Phil Plait's analysis of the subject and mentions Praxis, but uses the term "ring effect" (in quotes in the article) rather than "Praxis effect".
Paul Ens' Star Wars: A New Hope Special Edition Annotations, "Last updated Tuesday, Aug 26, 1997" (five years before Plait's book and eleven years before the Wikipedia article), states the following: "This is a similar effect to that used in Star Trek 6 when the Klingon moon Praxis explodes. (The word 'Praxis' is actually used in the ANH:SE credits.)" Paul Ens does not use the precise phrase "Praxis effect", however.
There are also many references of this kind on message boards and the like. The moral of the story seems to be that the word "Praxis" has become a well-known qualifier among geeks for this kind of ring, with an implied reference to Star Trek VI that doesn't require mentioning the movie by name. To what extent this phenomenon was generated or encouraged by the creation of the Wikipedia article in 2008 (with Plait's 2002 Bad Astronomy book as its sole source, as it still is), I cannot say. Gildir (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Message boards and blogs are generally not reliable. The "top 7" and "top 12" lists are not reliable, either. The Escapist article appears to be a reprint of the Shadowlocked one. Unfortunately, Shadowlocked is a blog. Looking at their current website, they seem to full of spam. Honestly, all of the sources, excluding a handful of blogs and forum posts, are in passing. A term being known among nerds does not replace the need for reliable sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Plus all the WP:CITOGENESIS problems. Now, some terms invented on Wikipedia did became notable, so it's not like we are raising the bar here, but so far I still not seeing any source that meets RS requirements (offers WP:SIGCOV and is independent and reliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might this be merged to SW:ANH, since it seems we have plenty of commentary on that use of it, and the notability of that movie is not in question? Seems we pass V easily, so it's reasonable for this search term to land somewhere reasonable, but ST VI doesn't necessarily seem like the best place. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit awkward, though, since, although most of the coverage relates to the ANH Special Edition, the actual name "Praxis" refers to ST VI. Gildir (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree there. Seeing that we are already a bit beyond stub length, and that we have a least a second reliable source, keeping the article separate seems preferable to the merge to a less-than-ideal target. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Watchlisting this, in case new sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't appear the topic meets WP:GNG, even if it's shown to exist. At best, redirect somewhere. TTN (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Praxis_effect&oldid=1039271221"