This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.
So, the Star Trek Online lead designer, Al Rivera, announced the "official name" for the alternate reality yesterday.
According to him, it is the "Kelvin Timeline". Holly Amos at CBS Paramount Television stated that the Okudas coined the term for the new edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia (which Michael Okuda later confirmed).
Personally, I think that it's a terrible name, but it sounds like it'll be in the literature soon. The big question becomes...
How do we deal with it, and what do we do with it? -- sulfur (talk) 10:27, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- It's still non-canon, due to not being onscreen. At least, not yet. So, I think we should essentially ignore it for the time being (while obviously noting it on our alternate reality page). Of course, we would accept it as the official name if it is said in Star Trek Beyond or referenced in any other future canon release. --Defiant (talk) 11:29, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- As noted on its article, the term mirror universe isn't canon either but it's an official background term. I'm still getting used to it but I suspect we'll change when the book comes out and/or we see the producers of the new TV show using it (why else have they coined the term?) I suspect we'll have to change the {{alt}} template too. --Alientraveller (talk) 14:25, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I think the difference is there no substantial alternative to use for the mirror universe. In the case of the alternate reality, there already is a substantial canonical name, which is why we use it. In fact, we have no obligation to accept "Kelvin Timeline" either; a precedent might be our policy concerning TAS, even though Roddenberry himself advised regarding it as non-canon. --Defiant (talk) 15:52, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Having looked into this, I've concluded it seems to be even more unofficial than I at first thought; CBS has no authority about the Star Trek films, as it's Paramount that has all say-so regarding them. --Defiant (talk) 16:42, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I say go with Nyota Uhura's quote for now. It's not as though we haven't got a canon name for it spoken in the film. --LauraCC (talk) 16:50, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Incidentally, why didn't the Okudas ask MA? But I guess as there are other (albeit minor) alternate realities/timelines, they wanted a name that would leave no doubt as to what they were referring to. For the uninitiated. --LauraCC (talk) 16:54, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
The page already has a note in the BG section about it. Note also that The Star Trek Book refers to it as "Kelvin Timeline" (with that capitalization) throughout. -- sulfur (talk) 10:12, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
- Although the arguably canonical term for the "mirror universe" as used in the series is "the alternate universe" (as used in "Shattered Mirror" and repeatedly in "The Emperor's New Cloak", although "Resurrection" uses it to refer to the "main universe"). Given that on-screen terminology, it's kind of confusing to see a similar term used generically for what is referred to with increasing consistency as the "Kelvin timeline". That said, it's a pretty far-reaching change for this site, so I think it's fair to not rush to do anything until we confirm the term is being used consistently. --Cap'n Calhoun (talk) 02:45, July 12, 2016 (UTC)
- i'm gonna go ahead and kick in my support for "kelvin timeline" rather than "alternate reality". alternate reality is a generic term like "street", kelvin timeline is a specific term like "wall street", not to oversimplify things. if the powers that be are going with it, so should we. Deevolution (talk) 01:01, July 26, 2016 (UTC)
- Although the arguably canonical term for the "mirror universe" as used in the series is "the alternate universe" (as used in "Shattered Mirror" and repeatedly in "The Emperor's New Cloak", although "Resurrection" uses it to refer to the "main universe"). Given that on-screen terminology, it's kind of confusing to see a similar term used generically for what is referred to with increasing consistency as the "Kelvin timeline". That said, it's a pretty far-reaching change for this site, so I think it's fair to not rush to do anything until we confirm the term is being used consistently. --Cap'n Calhoun (talk) 02:45, July 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Defiant, CBS does have say, they own the Trek Licence and are lending it out, or whatever its called to Paramount. They gave STO the rights to use KT content in their game, which is licensed by CBS not Paramount. Heck, the official Beyond website has CBS in the copyright/trademark area--Tuskin38 (talk) 15:51, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Mirror universe is consistently used by production staff long before and after DS9 ruined it by using the same term in canon for both the prime and mirror universes; this term is used by people reviving a paycheck for a few months. We don't know if it's going to stick yet, and it's still not canon. - Archduk3 16:29, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Well it has been used in 2 (and to be 3 this fall with the new Encyclopedia) officially Licensed Star Trek products. It is the official name used by CBS according to people working at CBS--Tuskin38 (talk) 16:31, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Which is great for bginfo. "Kelvin Timeline" is the official name for CBS merchandising... but that still doesn't make the name canon. The game itself, remember, isn't canon either. --Defiant (talk) 16:46, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- But "alternate reality" is not a name at all, just a generic descriptor for a category of thing, like "terrestrial planet" or "dwarf galaxy" or "cargo ship." The term was used in the plural by Harry Kim in "Favorite Son" and by Mirror T'Pol in "In a Mirror, Darkly," so we know canonically that it is a general category label, not a unique name. Referring to the Kelvin Timeline as "the alternate reality" is like referring to Vulcan as "the planet" or Nechayev as "the admiral." It's just not specific enough. --CLBennett (talk) 17:30, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- "alternate reality" isn't canon either. shouldn't we go with what the producers are now referring to it as for clarity's sake? isn't that closer to canon than a descriptive term that is not at all canon? uhura's line is "an alternate reality", not "the alternate reality." Deevolution (talk) 18:41, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- But "alternate reality" is not a name at all, just a generic descriptor for a category of thing, like "terrestrial planet" or "dwarf galaxy" or "cargo ship." The term was used in the plural by Harry Kim in "Favorite Son" and by Mirror T'Pol in "In a Mirror, Darkly," so we know canonically that it is a general category label, not a unique name. Referring to the Kelvin Timeline as "the alternate reality" is like referring to Vulcan as "the planet" or Nechayev as "the admiral." It's just not specific enough. --CLBennett (talk) 17:30, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- You've just contradicted yourself (best not to do that!) "Alternate reality" is indeed canon, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. --Defiant (talk) 18:44, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The claim was "'alternate reality' isn't canon." As you've both now admitted, that statement isn't true. --Defiant (talk) 19:51, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- right and now it has a name given to it by the producers. it's not a contradiction to acknowledge that the line was used to describe the rebooted universe, not to name it. the producers have settled on "kelvin timeline", the generic moniker used here for so long is no longer necessary. Deevolution (talk) 20:56, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- The Okudas are no longer involved in producing episodes or films. Even if they were, it's irrelevant. Gene Roddenberry himself said that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was apocryphal, that does not make it so. 31dot (talk) 22:23, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- ...and the same is true of TAS (apart from "Yesteryear"). Just because you'd like to dream "Kelvin Timeline" was canon does not make it so. CBS don't have the rights to change it in the films, and yes... the claim was "'alternate reality' isn't canon," which has repeatedly been contradicted and refuted in this thread. --Defiant (talk) 22:37, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- once again, the claim is that "alternate reality" isn't the canon name of the rebooted universe. there is no stated name for it in the films. "kelvin timeline" is being used by the producers (of content), it is officially sanctioned by the IP owners, that should be good enough for us. this can only be repeated so many times: "alternate reality" is a generic, descriptive term, "kelvin timeline" is for all intents and purposes the proper name of the reboot universe. Deevolution (talk) 22:40, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- And once again, your claim is wrong. The stated name in the films is "alternate reality". No amount of dreaming otherwise is gonna change that; it's up to Paramount and the current production staffers to do so, if they decide to change it. "Kelvin Timeline" is entirely non-canon; in other words, not "proper" in any shape or form. --Defiant (talk) 22:52, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- that's not a name. it simply isn't a name, if it was a name she wouldn't have used the word "an" in front of it. that's not how english works. Deevolution (talk) 23:54, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter a jot. What matters is that we regard it as a name, as it's the closest we have in canon to a name. Therefore, it is a name... because we say it is. Understood? Now, stop your arguing and accept the truth: we use "alternate reality", and there's nothing you can do to change that. Goodbye! --Defiant (talk) 00:01, July 28, 2016 (UTC)
- i actually don't accept it and a clearly graining majority doesn't accept it either. you've just said it yourself, there's no canon name, let's think of something more specific or go with the more specific name already deemed appropriate by the IP holder. Deevolution (talk) 00:06, July 28, 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so this has gotten a bit "fun" here, and now everyone is going to take a break for the next 12 hours to think on how they can be less "fun" going forward, and maybe learn how to indent properly.
- Seriously though, 12 hours...no posts on this subject...at all. - Archduk3 02:39, July 28, 2016 (UTC)
Format break
Well, I'm for "Kelvin timeline" tbh. I wasn' a month ago, I figured that ideally we should do nothing yet, and then in one or two years gently wake up to the fact that somehow this term had caught up and it only makes sense for us to change too. But things are moving way faster; it is now clear that this new term is a major element in CBS explaining to all the new people that are going to come to the franchise how the new series relates to those movies they might have seen, and the media is following them. The term is getting adopted extremely quickly, and it's going to stick. And I think it's important for us to be ready for those new people who know little about star trek that we'll complement that effort instead of being this weird place that does its own thing.
And as for how canon should supposedly overrule all the above, consider: 1) How happily we're using "mirror universe" while going from canon we have exactly the same argument for calling it the "parallel universe" as we have for calling the alternate universe alternate universe. So it's hardly unprecedented to replace the best canon term we can vaguely infer with what tptb give us. And 2) people are seriously forgetting how diverse opinion originally was on what to name this timeline. It's been pointed out here already that our beloved "alternate timeline" is based on what sounds more like a throwaway comment, and that should be taken serious given that it became the standard more or less only because nothing better was offered either by the movie or the producers. I think that if you read the previous discussion, it is hard to see how had official sources offered us "Kelvin timeline" back then, we would not have happily jumped on it. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:03, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe back in 2009, but this isn't the first time the name of our "beloved" alternate REALITY has been discussed since then. There have been several more discussions since then, which you know. It's actually fun to watch my opinion on this change through the years. That said, I'm fine with being that "weird place" that thinks TAS is canon and wants to wait out the storm before doing something rash.
- Also, I haven't seen one media outlet say "alternate reality" as one of the terms "fans" have been using, so I doubt they looked further than their own archives in 2009 when the terms they list were much more common, which means the media's echo chamber shouldn't be trusted as anything but a "circular reference chain." - Archduk3 03:58, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- The media might be an echo chamber, but it is an authoritative source. If you use the standard that the media is not to be trusted as a source for any fact, that very few things would be acceptable on any wiki. One should also note, that a similar discussion is occurring on Wikipedia for another term "Reboot Universe", not "Alternate Timeline".Oldag07 (talk) 13:21, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say the media couldn't be trusted for "any" fact, just that it can't be trusted for this "fact," because one media outlet will write an article about the "offical" name, and then every other media outlet will write an article based on the first article. Here's a link to that Wikipedia discussion, for reference, but we are not Wikipedia. That said, things don't currently look too good for KT over there either, and if alternate reality is so generic, how come no one can seem to use that very specific term? - Archduk3 14:11, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- So, Engage: The Official Star Trek Podcast has consistently used the term "Kelvin Timeline" for the current film series. It shows up consistently in episodes when referring to the two realities, and even in episode descriptions/titles. This podcast is (obviously from the name) directly affiliated with CBS, which seems like it should give it some weight. I personally am in favor of the new term, as it removes ambiguity and brings clarity to discussions, which is always a laudable goal. DesertFly3 (talk) 23:06, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- M-A doesn't even use the Database on startrek.com as a source (Which also uses the term Kelvin Timeline), so I don't think they'll use the Podcast--Tuskin38 (talk) 23:33, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- DesertFly3, sorry, but I don't feel your comment really brought much of anything new to the conversation, because the Star Trek Encyclopedia and aforementioned game are both "directly affiliated with CBS" and are both "official" (as in, officially licensed). Yet, none of these establish the name "Kelvin Timeline" as canon nor production intent (i.e., used by the production staff of the current Star Trek film series). Unless/until the name is used in either of those 2 contexts, we cannot and will not move ahead with accepting the name as a site-wide standard. Bottom line. --Defiant (talk) 23:41, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- i'm sorry, that's your unilateral decision to make? as has been plainly established by myself and others "alternate reality" is not a canon name nor intended by the production staff to be one, so let's continue the discussion rather than attempting to shut it down if we (you) don't agree. there's no harm in disagreement. Deevolution (talk) 23:48, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it's not my "unilateral decision to make" but it's clearly MA policy to disregard "Kelvin Timeline" because it isn't canon nor production intent, and that clearly remains MA policy. That's been the case for many years, so why would it suddenly change now?! And yes, I do believe there is sense in closing down a discussion if it's just going round and round, with the answer remaining the same again and again, and no other conclusion arrived at. For me, it's not about disagreeing with you; it's about letting you know the terminology will stay "alternate timeline", because that's what the admins have decided, and that won't be changing just because of this discussion (as I keep trying to point out, it will change if and when the term "Kelvin Timeline" is either accepted into canon or established as production intent). Since MA has only a limited amount of storage memory it can use, and this discussion clearly isn't going anywhere more constructive, I strongly suggest you stop the conversation for the time being, and revisit it when the right time to revisit it comes (i.e., when the name is established in either canon or production intent). That proposal will save time, energy, money, and will prevent the ever-distracting presence of this conversation so frequently popping up on the list of recent changes for no good reason. Now, please let it rest. --Defiant (talk) 00:14, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- i fully agree that my argument and yours have been clearly laid out and - at this point - the discussion between us is circular and unproductive. but, no, i do not agree that the debate should end. whatever practical concerns regarding bandwidth or space here can and should be sorted out by admins in the interest of solving a problem that has persisted since 2009. this is the perfect time to hash this out as CBS has handed us a precise term when there was none before. no, i do not believe it's proper to leave it and revisit it later. and again, it would appear a majority of folks here are leaning towards "kelvin timeline". it benefits only those who disagree to shut the conversation down. Deevolution (talk) 00:26, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your last statement. I'm one of those who have recently been persuaded that, in the long run, it will be beneficial to use the term "Kelvin Timeline". However, the time is clearly not right for that term to meet the conditions of applying it on a site-wide basis. In essence, there's nothing more we can do, for the time being. --Defiant (talk) 00:34, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Seeking clarification here - when the term "production staff" is bandied about, this is a reference to the producers JJ Abrams, Ron Ames, Bryan Burk, Jeffrey Chernov, David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, Tommy Harper, Robert Orci, and Lindsey Weber? It is a not a reference to the scriptwriter and actor Simon Pegg, who used the term "Kelvin Timeline", in an interview.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:44, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Which interview is that?--Tuskin38 (talk) 00:47, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- if Memphis77 is referring to my use of the term, i've used it interchangeably with the actual producers of the films and the powers that be at CBS who have little-to-no input in the actual creation of content - so i'm not being very precise there unfortunately. that said, simon pegg has used the term in a blog post[1] in which he specifically discusses canon. Deevolution (talk) 00:50, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Well spotted. However, he does also use "Kelvin universe" in that article. --Defiant (talk) 00:53, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- he uses "kelvin timeline" in this interview[2] from last week as well. doug jung uses it in this one: [3] Deevolution (talk) 00:55, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- The Pegg interview is refutable, as no-one involved in production used the term in the interview content on that page; it was the writer of the article who uses the term. However, the Jung interview is a great find, and its 2 uses of the term are non-refutable. So, we have that in combination with Pegg's canon-based blog post as good evidence. --Defiant (talk) 01:03, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- yeah you're right about the pegg interview, that's them formatting their article strangely and me not reading close enough, sorry. Deevolution (talk) 01:18, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- That's okay. I reckon you're to be commended for finding those articles where production personnel use the term "Kelvin Timeline"; great work. --Defiant (talk) 01:21, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- why thank you. Deevolution (talk) 01:26, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- DesertFly3, sorry, but I don't feel your comment really brought much of anything new to the conversation, because the Star Trek Encyclopedia and aforementioned game are both "directly affiliated with CBS" and are both "official" (as in, officially licensed). Yet, none of these establish the name "Kelvin Timeline" as canon nor production intent (i.e., used by the production staff of the current Star Trek film series). Unless/until the name is used in either of those 2 contexts, we cannot and will not move ahead with accepting the name as a site-wide standard. Bottom line. --Defiant (talk) 23:41, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- M-A doesn't even use the Database on startrek.com as a source (Which also uses the term Kelvin Timeline), so I don't think they'll use the Podcast--Tuskin38 (talk) 23:33, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- So what I am reading here is that two people (Defiant and Archduk3, don't like the new name that has come up recently (from official sources), and everyone else who has commented is okay with this designation. Am I missing anything here? Why are these two being so recalcitrant? How long until my unpopular opinion is deleted? (P.S. This is all getting screenshotted so people can see the truth when you guys delete what you don't like (for whatever reason.) (P.P.S. Why are you fighting this? What agenda does opposing reality gain you? This is clearly what is going to be truth going forward; whatever "problems" you have with terminology will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, so why oppose it?) (P.P.P.S. I fully expect I will be banned for this. I am not insulting, attacking, or being mean to anyone, but I am asking hard questions that certain people won't like. Hopefully enough people will see this post to call out any wrongdoing.)DesertFly3 (talk) 05:48, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- So, Engage: The Official Star Trek Podcast has consistently used the term "Kelvin Timeline" for the current film series. It shows up consistently in episodes when referring to the two realities, and even in episode descriptions/titles. This podcast is (obviously from the name) directly affiliated with CBS, which seems like it should give it some weight. I personally am in favor of the new term, as it removes ambiguity and brings clarity to discussions, which is always a laudable goal. DesertFly3 (talk) 23:06, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually roughly 9 to 5 for KT, with Defiant "switching" sides. That said, consensus building isn't about sheer numbers, but rather the mitigation of arguments. In that sense it's still roughly even, as both sides have good and valid points that haven't been fully address or mitigated by the other side. Also, those aren't "hard" questions, just very biased and nutty ones. I'd like to write a post script here about the number of post scripts there, but this is a single post. - Archduk3 06:22, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I vote for "Kelvin timeline", too. It's more specific and it seems to be official. As for the power politics of MA, best of luck with that. - Darth Duranium (talk) 06:39, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of any confusion I may have about Archduk3's opinion about consensus building and the mitigation of arguments, I would like it noted for the record I am neither for or against the change. I will support whatever decision is arrived at by consent of the community.--Memphis77 (talk) 07:00, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't feel anyone is wrong here. I just think it's obvious that "Kelvin Timeline" is very much the official term for the new reality, and I just want to understand why people are opposing it. Once again, I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but Alternate Reality is an inaccurate way to address something. "Kelvin Timeline" is much clearer. Why are people clinging to unclear nomenclature? There is nothing to be gained here. The old way worked for its time, but there is a better system now. Why fight it? There are many examples from multiple sources in favor of the new name. Embrace it. Resistance is futile. DesertFly3 (talk) 07:10, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- I personally feel like I'm being essentially damned by both sides now (by DesertFly and Archduk, at least). My terms were always that the name "Kelvin Timeline" had not been proven to be established in canon nor production intent, and that I would support the name if and when it was proven. That time has now come. So, no, I haven't "switched sides" (as claimed by Archduk), nor am I containing to oppose the name (as claimed by DesertFly). As far as I'm concerned, there should no longer be "sides", as the name has clearly been shown to have been in use with production intent. --Defiant (talk) 09:05, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't feel anyone is wrong here. I just think it's obvious that "Kelvin Timeline" is very much the official term for the new reality, and I just want to understand why people are opposing it. Once again, I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but Alternate Reality is an inaccurate way to address something. "Kelvin Timeline" is much clearer. Why are people clinging to unclear nomenclature? There is nothing to be gained here. The old way worked for its time, but there is a better system now. Why fight it? There are many examples from multiple sources in favor of the new name. Embrace it. Resistance is futile. DesertFly3 (talk) 07:10, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Defiant, I mean you no ill will. In the end, this is a fictional universe, and we are all fans. No-one can say how much of a fan you are but yourself. What I mean to say, is: my intention is not to damn you, nor anyone. My only desire is to increase clarity and ease of communication, among all "Trekkies". If you agree that "Kelvin Timeline" is correct, hurrah: we agree! If you feel there is another, more accurate term to describe it, and we disagree, please share your reasoning. I mean this in all sincerity. We are all fans together, and we can all be friendly together, in the greatest tradition of co-operation this universe exemplifies. I believe the "Kelvin" moniker is most correct, but I am trying to keep an open mind, and I am confident everyone involved in this discussion is also. In the end, the terms we use to describe this wonderful universe are not nearly as important as the shared joy and love we have for this fictional future! LLAP DesertFly3 (talk) 09:57, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Defiant, "switching" is in quotes in my post because it's only possible to see it that way if this is a "one side vs. another side" thing, which is what it would have to be for only you and me to be "standing in the way of progress," which isn't even accurate using the raw numbers (that was my point btw). That's not what this is though. This is an argument based debate on which term should be used. Changing your opinion isn't a problem, that's actually the "perfect world" goal of the system. The idea in a less than perfect world though is that the "best" argument "wins."
- The reason for consensus building here, and the mitigation of arguments, is because policy isn't black and white on this issue. This can go either Jonathan Archer or Klingon prison planet, which is why I intent to go through here and put together a "scoreboard" of the point v counterpoint v counter-counterpoints and a master list of "who" used the term in interviews and whatnot. I just don't have the time to do that right now, this is a volunteer site after all, not a job. - Archduk3 14:51, July 30, 2016 (UTC)
Break the second
| Pro Kelvin Timeline | Pro alternate reality | ||
| Point | Counterpoint | Counter-counterpoint | Counter-counter-counterpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Kelvin Timeline" is official [4][5] | So is: | Some of the other terms were only used before "Kelvin Timeline" was official | But not all |
| "Kelvin Universe" is being used by the press interchangeably with "Kelvin Timeline" implying that CBS isn't very strict about it | |||
| "Alternate reality" is used in-universe on screen | "...an alternate reality" is a description, not a name | Descriptions have been used as names before (Klingon prison planet) | |
| Alternate XXX is vague | "Alternate reality" is exclusively used on MA for this | ||
| It isn't clear which reality "...an alternate reality" is being used to describe | "You are assuming that Nero knows how events are predicted to unfold. To the contrary, Nero's very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party." "An alternate reality?" "Precisely. Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed." This makes it clear the term is being used for the "new" timeline the crew is in. |
||
Mirror universe is "the alternate universe" in canon, but we ignore that name for the background name:
|
"alternate universe" is used to refer to the prime universe twice in "Resurrection", so the name applies to both | "Alternate universe" is used for the mirror universe more | "Alternate reality" hasn't ever been used to describe the "prime" reality (see above), only a few other "alternate realities" and MA doesn't use that specific term for them (see above), so the mirror/alternate universe consensus that a clear term wasn't established in canon doesn't really apply here |
| CBS is not the same company as Paramount, CBS doesn't get to name Paramount's stuff | |||
| The studio doesn't set MA policy, and this isn't the first time they've decided something was "canon," or in some cases "not canon," and we've disagreed. | |||
A rough chart of the points and counterpoints made here. I've added some that haven't been fully explored here, but were brushed upon or need to be stated due to some users apparently not knowing about them. I'll continue to update this as necessary. - Archduk3 22:15, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Wow! You've really gone about this in a very biased way, haven't you? It's quite clear you've done your research into this with a foregone conclusion very much in mind, when actually the issue really calls for a lot of consideration to both sides. I'm severely disappointed by that. Suffice to say that production intent was more than enough for you to state canonically that Sulu is gay in the alternate reality, yet production intent is suddenly insufficient here. Those double standards prove very disappointing! --Defiant (talk) 22:29, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
Production intent wasn't "enough" to decide Sulu was gay, it was because both those characters wore wedding bands, which means they had to have spouses, which were identified conclusively by production sources and at least one known deleted scene. I'm not sure how you seem to now forget this same reasoning I've explained three times already and which you agreeded with. Since this is now the forth time, it shouldn't surprise me you think all the green up there is biased, you may have forgotten some of those points as conveniently as you're forgotten a discussion from just about a month ago, but you're welcome to suggest counterpoints instead of crying foul, assuming there are any. - Archduk3 23:54, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of calling the table biased, why not try to stay constructive and see this impressive bit of research as one of two competing opinions, but just backed up with a whole lot of data. Archduk3 didn't quite present it like that, but it's still the best way to look at it. That being said, the research hasn't really swayed me. The way I see it, it's not that complicated: Fact 1) "Mirror Universe" offers a solid precedent for using a production-provided term over unhelpfully vague canon terms. Fact 2) "Alternate universe" is a vague term that has nonetheless been very helpfull to us the last few years. Fact 3) Some people may just dislike "Kelvin timeline", but it has the potential to become the universaly used term to refer to this part of the canon much the same way "Mirror Universe" has become universally used to the point that we're willing to accept it. Therefore, the question simply seems: can we (at this point) find enough merrit/acceptance for the still very new term to (at this point) use it. Since the term is very new, I can see why people think it is not. I've given my own reasons for believing it is upstream and don't feel the need to add to that at this point, but it's a fair question.
- (also full disclosure; due to my country having a shitty release date I haven't seen the new movie yet, and therefore (since I try to stay somewhat spoiler free) I am unable to factor in the gay Sulu angle in my thinking) -- Capricorn (talk) 00:43, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
- doesn't look biased to me, looks like a work in progress. regarding my last comments on the subject, simon pegg again used "kelvin timeline" when he spoke with the official podcast last week: [15] Deevolution (talk) 06:58, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
- I understand wanting to be aligned with the Encyclopedia/Okudas, but there are other areas were we and tptb differ. Such as the conjectural starship classes (Andromeda, etc) and the classes & registries of a bunch of ships like the Al-Batani and the Hera. All are valid bgnotes though. It's fine if both parties use different terms for the Alternate reality. -Compvox (talk) 15:31, August 11, 2016 (UTC)
- CBS is licencing out Star Trek to Paramount if I understand this correctly. If you go the CBS Consumer Products page, it lists all the JJ Abrams Films under their properties page, and has so since at least 2012 (thats how far back it goes on the "wayback machine") http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/properties.html CBS could probably choose to pull the plug if they wanted to, though Paramount would probably fight back.--Tuskin38 (talk) 01:48, August 13, 2016 (UTC)
- relatively new here, but wanted to put in my two cents as i've been trying to give the "alternate reality" pages some love. i think this notation on the "mirror universe" page says it all: "The term "mirror universe" has never been used on screen and is only derived from behind-the-scenes production sources, such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia." why wouldn't the same logic and caveat apply to "kelvin timeline"? Regenerations (talk) 23:19, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, there are a lot of arguments missing. It's like you've forgotten why we decided to call it the "Alternate universe" in the first place. It was never some hard canon name, just a name that had tangential canon support. It is very clear that it was not given a proper name, since she referred to it as "an alternate universe."
- Now there's a chart claiming a bunch of other "official names" that never were. A name is a proper noun. Yet all but one of the examples is not one, and you don't even try to pretend they are by capitalizing them. So they were never names. The only other name was Abramsverse, which both predates the new official name (and new stuff is more canon), but references something out of universe, which flies in the face of the policy to keep the real world and fictional world separate. So we can't use "Abramsverse."
- The chart also completely misses the point of saying that the words "alternate universe" was used in other places to refer to a different universe. So it inherently can't be the name for a specific universe. Yet the counterarguments don't even actually deal with it. (Yes, you can argue that it can't be a name because it's not a proper noun. But that still means it's not the name.)
- I also notice no counterargument to the idea that Paramount owns Star Trek, when CBS actually licenses the movie rights to Paramount Pictures. And there's no counterargument about Memory Alpha having its own canon policy--when its policy has aligned with CBS/Paramount for years now, and the statement ignores all the other times we have went with what CBS/Paramount said. Just because we didn't do it 0.1% of the time doesn't make it an argument for disagreeing now. You need a good reason.
- It's only become more and more clear that the Kelvin Timeline is the official name. And Memory Alpha, by pretending that there is no better name than a throwaway line that was never supposed to be a name in the first place, is presenting inaccurate information. This is bad. Please fix. --trlkly 04:52, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
- What's bad is that not only do you have such a lack of respect for this wiki that you can't be bothered to follow the indenting procedures that we adhere to (or can't be bothered to learn them in the first place), but also that you don't even know the name of the term you're attempting to do away with. It's "alternate reality", not "alternate universe". --Defiant (talk) 07:31, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
Necro
Would like to re-open this debate, which as far as I can tell has been dormant for over a year (my apologies if it has continued elsewhere). The term 'Kelvin Timeline' has since been used in the title of an official reference book The Art of Star Trek: The Kelvin Timeline. In that same book, Justin Lin refers to the new films as taking place in the 'Kelvin Timeline' repeatedly. Does that not constitute 'production intent' as defined above (used by the production staff of the current Star Trek film series)?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcusSullivan (talk • contribs).
- That's probably not going to happen. It's been fully discussed. Also please indent correctly and sign your posts.-- Compvox (talk) 01:12, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, literally first time ever editing/discussing on a Wiki of any kind. Will do my best to follow the formatting going forward, please forgive any errors (and thank you for the educational link!). I understand the issue has been discussed at length, but was compelled write in because this reference book in particular seems like new, fairly substantial 'evidence' to support the change to 'Kelvin'. But I suppose to argument is permanently closed, regardless of any further developments?--MarcusSullivan (talk) 02:51, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
- The argument is more or less closed until a substantial amount of evidence is around for one side, or until something in-universe is said that changes what we are already using. The amount of work required for any change is simply too much unless we have something fairly definitive and authoritative to change this too. The arguments for each side are fairly circular right now. - Archduk3 04:54, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
- Can also add the Star Trek: Designing Starships The Kelvin Timeline book to the substantial case for making the change. The fourth Eaglemoss shuttle set will also carry the KT moniker, too. Both are officially authorized products, FWIW. To me, it seems logical to change an ambiguous term to a specific one, even if it'll mean some work. - Darth Duranium (talk) 06:55, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
True, I can certainly see the argument repeating itself here. I just figured the difference in discussing it now vs. in 2016 is that the term has pretty definitively stuck around and proliferated, having popped up repeatedly in new merchandise and literature in the past year-and-a-half. That seemed to me to constitute a 'substantial amount of evidence'. But if the term must be used on-screen before a change is made, then I suppose the argument is over. LLAP and keep up the great work on this site! I've enjoyed many, many hours on here and applaud you all for your detailed and diligent work.--MarcusSullivan (talk) 00:39, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Redux
Paramount has just announced the Star Trek Kelvin Timeline trilogy on DVD/ BluRay [16] I suggest that therefore the Alternate Reality be officially renamed Kelvin Timeline across the wikia.213.191.129.251 13:47, June 15, 2019 (UTC)Elijah
- FYI, this is a "wiki". Not a "wikia".
- Secondly... still out-of-universe material. Just like all the other stuff that calls it "Kelvin timeline". :) -- sulfur (talk) 15:46, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
- i'm all for reopening this can of worms. yet again we come down to an out-of-universe term ("kelvin timeline") that aptly describes the timeline versus a generic dictionary term ("an alternate reality") spoken in dialogue, never intended to label that reality, but to simply describe it. we don' have the benefit of a character naming the universe on screen but we do have CBS and paramount telling us what to call it and it's a lot clearer than "alternate reality". Deevolution (talk) 17:41, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't there already a redirect from "Kelvin Timeline"? I think that's good enough personally.--Tuskin38 (talk) 21:35, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] - Yet again we come down to subjective argument for real world term vs subjective complaint about in-universe term. We're an in-universe wiki, and "the" alternate reality is a lot cleaner than "Kelvin timeline".
- The redirect is more than enough for people to find the page, and it's not like there are going to be more "KT" films anytime soon. In fact, since DIS finally slipped the term "mirror" into "canon" for our other big universe, I would say the argument for KT, and especially the need to change the term, are both down dramaticly since this was last an issue. - Archduk3 21:45, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't there already a redirect from "Kelvin Timeline"? I think that's good enough personally.--Tuskin38 (talk) 21:35, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- i was thinking since there likely won't be any more KT films anytime soon, it's clear we're never going to get a canon name for the thing. rather than parsing dialogue for a passable term, why not simply use the one the IP holders are telling us to use? in the same vein as the use of "prime" before emperor georgiou said it outright, that term came not from dialogue or on-screen text, but the end credits, which are certainly not in-universe. Deevolution (talk) 22:16, June 18, 2019 (UTC) 22:15, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, the fact there probably won't be any more AR films is exactly why you should figure we'll get an in-universe name. One day, sooner than you think, those films will be the nostalgia being exploited by a company with the rights to both the TV series and the films, and then, for no reason other than they could, they'll give it a name in-universe. Considering how disposable culture is these days, I expect this to happen before the next decade is out, if not right after the rights are recombined, which I expect will be much sooner than that.
- Also, "prime" was from an on-screen source. While it may not have been in-universe, it most certianly was "canon". It's also such a generally descriptive term that it can be used easily and cleanly in-universe without breaking the POV. KT is simply not either of those things. The thing you think is a benefit of KT is exactly why it's a bad term, and your complaint for the current general term is exactly why it is better. - Archduk3 06:02, June 19, 2019 (UTC)
- i'm all for reopening this can of worms. yet again we come down to an out-of-universe term ("kelvin timeline") that aptly describes the timeline versus a generic dictionary term ("an alternate reality") spoken in dialogue, never intended to label that reality, but to simply describe it. we don' have the benefit of a character naming the universe on screen but we do have CBS and paramount telling us what to call it and it's a lot clearer than "alternate reality". Deevolution (talk) 17:41, June 18, 2019 (UTC)