Forum:Very Short Treks references

Forums → Ten Forward → Very Short Treks references

This discussion somewhat randomly started on talk:Game show, but the crux of the matter is how smoothly add the content from Star Trek: very Short Treks to Memory Alpha without creating anymore confusion or conflict than is necessary.

A quick summary of the aforementioned talk page can be summed up as:

• Because it is an official production, it certainly deserves a place on MA;
• There is a general consensus that the series is non-canon, as it is clearly noted as such by the producers;
• Two main schools of thought on this are:
  • These are apocryphal and "not in the Star Trek continuity at all".
  • These are "unverified and unreliable accounts" of events in the canon universe.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of personal feelings, these episodes do exist, but do so only in a "non-canon universe". Since they are only available on StarTrek.com and youTube, they therefore should a) fall under Category:Web content, not Category:Star Trek companion series, and in spite of being presented as a series of shorts, they b) shouldn't be treated as being any more "real" than the fellow, and less elaborate self-contained short, The Young Hunter, which is otherwise ignored on MA altogether. As ignoring vST is obviously not a good option, I think the following proposal is equitable:

In spite of this "series" using elements from the prime universe, it should be interpreted independently (much like the Abrams-verse films are interpreted), but also, given that incorporating this "web content" into the Star Trek continuity is a bit haphazard, especially when mixed with canon content as if some farce, it still deserves a bit more than to be relegated to some apocrypha section of an article, so vST related content should be pulled out of the Star Trek continuity altogether.

By doing so, two things are accomplished: self identity for this universe of events and the clarity that that universe truly isn't intended to fit in with the established universe:

1. A new banner should be made for {{anything but canon}};
2. New articles should be exclusively made for everything of importance* from this universe (like chicken finger), rather than mixing content in in-universe articles (like for Spock, William T. Riker, Charles Tucker III, etc – so create {{abc|Spock}}, for example.)
   ([*]importance should curb the number of trivial references/articles to a need be basis through existing in-universe articles as a background note, but links of less importance to in-universe articles should be used sparingly, rather than their gratuitous usage now.)
3. With this, an opportunity to introduce other "web content" (read: animated(ish) media) into the database from, say from The Young Hunter, as a first step.

Bottom line, because mixed content from this "series" has grown to or spilled into almost 250 pages (mostly incorporated with in-universe content as being possible "fictional" (which it totally is), it probably should be nipped in the bud with a better organized approach before it gets anymore out of hand, and aren't being fixed with random adds of "Category:Non-canon" and tweaks to the current language as presented. –Gvsualan (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, I see also on talk:Star Trek: very Short Treks, that the idea was floated to treat the characters here like novel characters, ie [[Skin a Cat characters]] a la New Frontier characters. This is a plausible idea too, and could at least be a starting point that than be expanded on once a better idea of what we have is there to be seen. –Gvsualan (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why can't this content just be placed in the Apocrypha sections of various articles like any other non-canon info? I don't like the idea of having a "Spock (non-canon)" article. And how do we decide what is and isn't important? If Very Short Treks content gets their own articles, shouldn't we do the same for content from novels, comics and games? Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

MA doesn't quantify content from novels, games, comics; that's for Memory Beta or our (should be limited) apocrypha content to cover. These are a totally unique circumstance, they are episodes, and MA is about episodes; the episodes are however, not presented in terms MA is designed to digest. (Then again, I explained the point of this in the opening sentence.) This is a solution to problem we haven't taken on before; growing with the times and whatnot.

As for being able to decide if it is important or not, a good rule of thumb that is even often forgotten in in-universe articles, is if it actually had anything to do with the plot, then it would make sense to link to/write about, as opposed to simply adding a bunch of gratuitous and unnecessary links to food, bread, bone, meat, and woman, as seen in chicken finger. –Gvsualan (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason the founders of Memory Alpha decided to exclude novels, comics and games is because they are not canon. Just like Very Short Treks is not canon. The fact that they're episodes shouldn't matter.

Memory Beta only exists as a separate wiki because many Star Trek fans are obsessed with the concepts of canon and non-canon. No other fandom on the internet feels the need to have separate wikis for canon and non-canon content, so I would have no problem if Memory Alpha decided to start creating novel/comic/game-based articles. Just because we've never done it before doesn't mean we shouldn't start now.

Or we could just move the VST content to the Apocrypha sections. What I'm trying to say is that all non-canon info should be treated equally regardless of media. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been doing this here, on MA for 19 years. I don't need anything explained to me on how this is. I am instead explaining how it is likely going to be, because this is about 2023 stuff, not 2004 stuff, and you trying to speak on behalf of people from another time and have long since handed in their membership cards accomplishes nothing in this discussion, because this is about something that did not exist then, it exists now. The information is going to be presented here, lets do it right. –Gvsualan (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that only canonical stuff and real-world stuff should get pages. (When I say canonical I'm talking about stuff from the television shows and feature films as listed at MA:CANON). Non-canonical stuff, including stuff from vST, should not get pages and should just be covered in apocrypha sections.

I do not think this simply because its how things have worked in the past, but because it makes sense for the future as well. What logic is there behind giving stuff from all episodes and films pages, including non-canonical ones? It makes way more sense to just give pages to stuff from canonical episodes and films. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Starfleet. I mean Memory Beta was created to put all non-canon there. But now Gvsualan, we have users forcing non-canon data onto the wiki even though many people HAVE pointed out the fact that none of the data is canon, which in turn is causing a small editing war. At the very LEAST there should be no more addition VST till we have this situation properly sorted out, though for the record, I vote for Mr Starfleet Command method.CaptainProton12 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The mandate of MA is to catalogue anything aired. VST was aired. Ergo, we have a mandate to catalogue things from it. I like the idea of an "anything but canon" header on these things. They are NOT apocryphal, as that applies to things in games, books, etc.

My concern is that people will start adding material from said apocryphal materials to the "non-canon" pages, which is NOT the intent here.

In one of the prior discussions, someone mentioned the idea of having articles collecting the "new" characters on them in a single place. It might be worth just keeping that to a single "VST personnel" page (or something similar).

I'm perfectly happy with things from the VST episodes getting their own pages, with the appropriate header (and said header can add a category to said articles), and that's how those articles get catalogued. -- Sulfur (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being ignorant of this forum. I had actually brought up the idea of using the word "apocryphal" on another talk page. You know how the beginning of the article says: "According to a non-canon account..."? Well, my thought was instead it could say "According to an apocryphal account..."; reason being, it's a canon term that's been used in TNG: "Descent". The problem I have with the non-canon thing is it feels too much like we're writing this stuff from the real world perspective. But since apocryphal was an actual in-universe term, it could work here. Gvsualan told me that it wouldn't work. I'm assuming that's because apocryphal stuff could refer to comics, novels and videogames and stuff. Well -- my argument is that's taking it from the real world, the article for apocryphal is obviously going to be an in-universe article, so it works in that context, and; unless editors get it confused, it can be used to refer VST material. But yes, I understand that there'd be some users who might think it's okay to just add anything that's not canon to certain articles.

I think that having an "anything but canon" as a template header is a great idea, but the question is, where would it go? For example, let's say there's a reference to salad in one of the episodes. Would VST's entry have a "anything but canon" header directly over it? The reason I ask is because usually the headers are at the top of the page, like "Visions and Illusions" and so forth. But the thing is, an article like salad is going to have far more information in it than just stuff from VST. I certainly am not a fan of having a completely separate page -- like "Salad / VST" or something like that. Unless of course we went the route that they do on the Terminator Wiki, where when you go to the Sarah Connor page for example, there's a header at the top of the page that let's you select a timeline. Perhaps if there was some sort of head that you could click on "canon" or "anything but canon," which would mean: we'd essentially have two pages for salad, one would be called "Salad" and the other "Salad / VST" or whatever would work. We could use the DISPLAYTITLE feature to keep the name "salad." Anyway, I was just using salad as an example, I don't recall a reference to it but you see what I mean. For now, we don't have any other references to game shows, so that could stay one page...but anyway. Let me know what you guys think. --- Noah Tall (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One option might be to do something like we do for alternate timelines that are in italics with no indent... but to use a template that could be used in situ on the page that would be for VST informaton. That could wrap them in a border or something to distinguish them -- Sulfur (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could create a sub-header and place the VST information in there. We're not technically getting rid of the information so much as placing it in spot where we can safely show what information is Canon and what is NOT canon.CaptainProton12 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted scenes are also officially released promotional material. Perhaps these should be treated similarly to deleted scenes in that they may result in additional notes or articles from a real-world perspective like Martin Madden. Treating these as an alternate universe is silly; the shorts don't even line up as a single, consistent alternate universe (nor were they intended to), and the entirety of the final episode was speaking from a semi-real-world perspective. -- Cap'n Calhoun (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, we should also use the non-canon characters category to place the characters that originated from that series since, unless they came from a different show, they are most definitely non-canon.CaptainProton12 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not a good idea. Deleted scenes are completely oranges to these apples, and that category is for apocrypha, this is about applying MA mandates to a completely new scenario, which is exactly what Sulfur was talking about above. --Gvsualan (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

New Scenario? Dude there non-canon, even if you apply MA format, it doesn't change the fact that everything, including the show summary states that it is non-canon. Also, no one is arguing (mostly) about Sulfur, what were arguing is that the information PERTAINING to this non-canon series as it actually is, NON-CANON!CaptainProton12 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You've been here for like five edits, so I don't expect you to be fully understanding the distinction with a difference, and what you are arguing is exactly opposite of what Sulfur and I are discussing here. Also, please retain the same indent thought-out the discussion as per MA:TALK.--Gvsualan (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Though I find it humourous that I'm the one who got it in reverse. You're the one who keep making entries for VST without any forethought, you didn't even make italic for the text on Bragu page to at least tell readers that this information is different than the one usually shown on this site. Though that is a good note on the indent thing, I have to practice better on that.CaptainProton12 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You have it reversed because you are fixated on the black and white when this is gray. VST on MA =\= comics, novels, games etc on MA. Additionally, I have created very few, if any, articles on vST, though I have revised as many as time permits to consistent terminology, specifically stating the following is non-canon. Further, I already explaied the Bragu thing, I'm not reiterating it again. –Gvsualan (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't black and white. This is common sense. You are the one acting like a 'rule lawyering' dnd player, acting sporadically cause one of your rules suddenly no longer fits the mold, which is odd since one of your pitches was to acknowledge the non-canonicity of it all. Plus, don't even get me started on the questionable entry you made with 'ass' 'Screw' and 'knickersonian' the show captain pretty much realize that these new personnel were magically being created from his Figure of speech and yet you intentionally left them vague when the episode pretty much PAINTS them as artificial figures much like the captain 'Dream Woman' that he made when he put two and two together. That sir, is bad article creation.CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

So yes, I'm voting for a mixture of 1) and 2) A new banner should be made for "non-canon universe" and exclusion of events from said series for canon-characters; since it is the logical course of action as well as creating "non-canon species" since I've been arguing for a while, this series is non-canon. CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I did not create those articles, so get you facts straight. Second, the mandate of MA is to catalogue anything aired. VST was aired. Ergo, we have a mandate to catalogue things from it, regardless of canonicity. The point of this discussion is to do it in a seamless, orderly, and own unique way... Which is what the adults here understand. So with that, I'm done with you because you will never get it. –Gvsualan (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things here, we've not decided on the precise course of action other than to create an "anything but canon" header tag so far. In terms of what Alan stated (a few times over), yes, MA's mandate is to catalogue anything aired in an episode or movie. Does it make sense to have some of those things split out from the main pages? Likely. Does it make sense to have some of those ON the main pages? Likely. We can always standardize the header of that section ("ABC" as per the tagline?) and then redirects can point to those parts of the pages when they come from the VST (or other) episodes.

What this means right now though is that we DO NOT start randomly adding things to the articles until we've come to a consensus.

CaptainPRoton12: You're a new user. It's recommended (on ANY wiki or new site) that you take a bit of time to see how things work rather than just trying to do something that only you think is the proper course of action (the "non-canon characters" category for perfect example). It's not going to destroy the multiverse if we wait a few more days and come up with a CONSISTENT approach across the board to these things. The category you've been adding isn't the appropriate one either.

So, to summarize, this is what is on the table:

1. We create a header template for "anything but canon" (not "non-canon universe"). This header is only to be used on materials from the extra-canon materials. This template should also add in an APPROPRIATE category so that these things are categorized as ABC... in addition to their regular categories.
2. We create a segment header for "ABC", or possibly a segment template for such that includes the text and re-draws it into different colours/borders/etc.
3. We create redirects (as needed) for the characters/things that will be included on regular pages of stuff.
4. We create pages that collect all of the various characters from the VST episodes (or perhaps one per episode?) and redirect the characters into those.

I'd suggest we work through all of those things and test it out on a handful of articles, some that have both regular and ABC information, some that are only ABC information. Thoughts? -- Sulfur (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I really like the first two options for sure Sulfur. I'm not sure I actually understand three and four...does that mean that characters like Bragu for example wouldn't actually have pages, just redirect pages kind of like the Unnamed individuals? If that's the case, I don't really care too much for that, but on the other hand, it's not worth arguing too much over, because VST: "Worst Contact" only has a few guest stars in it anyway, and only two that were named out of the aliens. There was a Starfleet officer on the away team that wasn't named but then he's unnamed anyway. So I'd be good for that I guess. I'd rather characters that have names have pages of their own, but whatever works best. --- Noah Tall (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Could the option be to create like a spoiler type banner that could be used as a banner for vst specific articles and a sub-banner for already established articles at the bottom of canon specific information to not clout the top of the page? The same could then be applied to alternate reality sections if you so choose. ‐Yaroze86 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The #1 above is the same as the "spoiler" type banner. The "real world" banners, etc. Same diff.

My thought is that major characters would get their own page. The smaller, less relevant ones would be on the collective pages, with a redirect pointing to the appropriate section. Much like our current "unnamed" characters. -- Sulfur (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, cool...well then yeah, I'm totally for that. -- Noah Tall (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can get behind that now that it was properly explained Sulfur. CaptainProton12 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Just, wow... –Gvsualan (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

He expanded and explained it in a rational matter that I acquiesced, while we descended into what was essentially a shouting match. I apologize for my rudeness but you can't deny that's what happened.CaptainProton12 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've created two new templates to try out with this VST info: {{anything but canon}} for the page header, the same as with {{real world}}, {{mirror}}, etc., and {{abc}} to be used much as you'd use the {{bginfo}} template, to add bits of VST info to an otherwise canon article page. Test them out, see what you think. The {{anything but canon}} template still needs to have a background image added; this is something that can be discussed and voted on if we decide to keep the header template type. -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

...now that everyone else is done arguing about how this isn't grey, instead of focusing on the above, my only comment regarding the abc template is the indent, and that perhaps it needn't be necessary, because at this point the color is the only thing that differentiates it from being regular bginfo. –Gvsualan (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, those are just starting points. I basically just tweaked the color on the bginfo template for abc; we can change the outline color, remove the indent, remove the italics, whatever. Same goes for the "anything but canon" template... in addition to the background image, we can change the text to something else, too. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

How do we go about preestablished articles with VST related information? An example would be the USS Europa. Do we move it into a new self-contained article, keep it on the Europa page, or merged into one big VST article? ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, by using the {{abc}} template, just like the {{bginfo}} template. See the Europa page for an example. If the whole page is VST content, use the {{anything but canon}} template at the top, like {{real world}}. -- Renegade54 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the abc thing should have a mini-image like the anything but canon header in it. I just edited the Spock page and it kinda looks weird. It's just surrounded by a very big square. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a tiny bit of information, but there's a lot of VST material there. I was tempted to but the actual "Anything but canon" header inside the abc square, but I didn't obviously, but it would probably make it easier to notice. Should I call this "Anything but canon" rather than "Unverified accounts involving Spock" or something else? -- Noah Tall (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tinkered with it a bit, put the header inside, labeled it "ABC" instead. I don't think that it should have an extra image in it, but seeing how it works, I suspect that we should consider having a hide/show option on it that would collapse it down. -- Sulfur (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not terribly fond of making the mixed references exceptionally loud, over something more subtle and discreet...as that is the whole point of doing a box over an awkwardly worded subsection. I think in one example, Hemmer, the box seemed okay fit in at the end of the "legacy" section.–Gvsualan (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Quick question... Should we add the {{anything but canon}} in the vST episode pages?CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You know for added clarification to those reading the episode summaries.CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Episode pages are not part of the Star Trek universe and therefore fall under {{real world}}, so no. –Gvsualan (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the trailer of vST says it's "anything but canon" and the plots are really hard to align with previous established canon, unless they are happening on alternate realities/timelines, which is still an open possibility. Nevertheless, this is an official Star Trek production, shown on-screen as a series of in-universe episodes. It checks all the boxes to be declared canon, despite what the trailer says and despite the over-the-top absurd plots. The situation here is very similar to what TAS had for many years: The producers would say it's not canon, but by all means it obviously was (on-screen, in-universe, official, etc.) despite a giant Spock, an inflatable Enterprise and so on.

Bottom line, in my humble, honest opinion: either we treat vST as canon (and label all those events as "unknown timeline", which is true) or we remove vST altogether from Memory Alpha (like every other non-canon production that deserves no more than a footnote in MA).

But to include references to vST everywhere and at the same time label them as "Non-canon" is a mix that simply pollutes MA and diminishes it's value as a reliable source for Star Trek canon, IMHO. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike-Urilorib (talk • contribs).

I know this is hypocritical coming from me, but I feel like you REALLY overthought this. I mean we DO have entries from the expanded verse. Granted we do not errounously add the whole entry here since it defeats the purpose of this wiki but we DO acknowledge them (as seen here: Capture the Flag). PLUS there is the fact TAS was always in the gray-area even when Roddenberry was alive that everyone went 'screw it' and consider the whole thing canon while vST (As you so CLEARLY pointed out) was always MEANT to be non-canon and hammered home as such, especially since it features Spock and Scotty dying in two separate episode (the latter of whom, knows that he's in fact, a cartoon).CaptainProton12 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand your points, although my very personal definition of canon encompasses every official production shown on-screen and in-universe, regardless of the intent of the producers. So, no grey zones necessary. TAS was always canon to me (even when the bird said it wasn't) and vST is also canon to me (despite the intent of the producers). I believe it is fair to state in vST's main article that its trailer mentions the series is "anything but canon" because, well, the trailer does say that. But we don't need to repeat this "abc" thing everywhere. I would suggest we use the label "Unknown timeline" instead.

Advantages of doing so: 1) it is a factual, accurate statement, as the timelines shown in the episodes are indeed unknown. 2) It would stand the test of time instead of relying on the current producers' point of view. Imagine for example that a new producer makes new vST episodes and declares the whole thing to be canon after all. The "abc" label would fail; the "unknown timeline" label would still stand. 3) It eliminates some of the debate in the previous paragraphs where people (myself included) are concerned with the apparent excess non-canon stuff being introduced in the main Memory Alpha articles.

This would be a really beautiful and elegant solution, don't you think? vST main article would still keep mentioning the abc from the trailer, the Canon article would still keep that last paragraph about vST (pointing again to the trailer and the abc) and every other in-universe entry related to vST could simply be put under the label "unknown timeline". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike-Urilorib (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry but I have disagree with the naming. "Unknown Timeline" vaguely suggests that what happened in the vST occurred in the prime timeline, which we both know is inaccurate while the 'Anything But Canon' or "abc" as you put it, tells the readers that these events are more or less non-canon. Don't get me wrong, I do agree the number of non-canon materials that are being created due to vST is rather jarring, to say the least. But I like to assume the moderators know what they are doing for the most part.CaptainProton12 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and at this point, your discussion can continue on your personal talk pages. –Gvsualan (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

" 'Unknown Timeline' vaguely suggests that what happened in the vST occurred in the prime timeline..." I'm sorry, but that's the opposite of what it means. "Unknown" does not mean prime. If anything, it suggests it's probably NOT the prime timeline. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike-Urilorib (talk • contribs).

Point, counterpoint that still suggest what happen is "canon" which still defeats the purpose, and as such, should be dropped.CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing Gvsualan, I will gladly stop using this particular forum.CaptainProton12 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)