Talk: Content policy FAQ/Canon policy archive

Official Paramount books

So, do we include those books considered "official" by Paramount, e.g. the reference books series published by Pocket Books? If we're already using the Encyclopedia and Chronology as sources, what makes them that different from Star Charts, other than that Star Charts has a relatively greater speculation-to-canon ratio? -- MinutiaeMan 08:05, 7 Jan 2004 (PST)

I think there's a fundamental difference between the two - the Encyclopedia and the Chronology directly reference the canon, they collate it in a way, whereas the Star Charts and the Tech Manuals expand on the canon in further specific (but non-canon) detail. In the second type, you won't find mention of the episodes in which certain things were discovered or referenced, because they're set 'in' the Trek universe, whereas the first type is a 'Trek is a TV series' reference. -- DarkHorizon 16:56, 7 Jan 2004 (PST)

I agree that the distinction is a bit vague. Generally, the Encyclopedia and Chronology don't invent new stuff, while the books like the Charts and Starship Spotter are filled with conjecture and non-confirmed data. Another point is that the Ency, Chrono and Tech Manuals were written by the people that make the show. Furthermore, these books were presumably used by writers themselves. There are a few borderline cases, most notably Franz Joseph's Tech Manual, which was considered canon for the first movies, but later became completely non-canon. -- Harry 09:18, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)

This is, in my opinion, only partially correct. It's true that the Encyclopedia and the Chronology are first and foremost reference works, but even those two did invent some facts, for example exact dates from vague quotes such as "fifty years ago", or some of Starfleets registry numbers. This probably makes them better references than other works, but we still should be aware of this fact... -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)

A reason NOT to use the Star Charts, for example, is the fact that some of its info has already been contradicted. It is a good book, no doubt about that, but if it (or another book) is included as a valid source, it should at least be mandatory to identify the used information as "conjecture". Generally, I don't know if this is worth the trouble at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 10:37, 8 Jan 2004 (PST)

Any final answer yet? See also Talk:Star Trek: Star Charts, it would be nice to have one soon... -- Cid Highwind 07:50, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)

Fan series (both film and audio series)

So, do we include those fan-produced film and audio series, e.g. fanfilms or fanseries here? (See: Fan series) Does Memory Alpha include both canon or non-canon mainly?

Definitely NOT. We aim to include all canon information, and non-canon only finds its way in when it's useful background information. As on current, I believe our "apocrypha" is all the novels/manuals. Since fanfilms/fanseries are completely made by fans, and have nothing to do with production, we are definitely not going to include them. - AJHalliwell 11:38, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of this page?

I'm curious about this page, because the part about canonicity says until Memory Alpha develops a larger article base as a reference source. Is this something that will ever happen? 14200 canon articles seems like it's pretty large (if the canon policy ever plans to change, that is). Weyoun 01:56, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've made some lengths to define "standard operating procedure" (as i have used it, and how others have been observed by me) on how we cite things from "iffy" canon resources. -- Captain M.K.B. 07:53, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Animated Series Canoncity

What of the editorials on StarTrek.com, and pack in material in new Animated Series DVD release treating or calling the animated series as part of the overall star trek Canon? Should this article be updated to reflect this new stance. [1]^(X)[2]^(X)[3]^(X)-69.225.0.102 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems acceptable. --Alan del Beccio 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As of 3-Aug-2010, the three above links on the main project page are broken. Since I do not know the articles that were originally referenced by them, I cannot fix them. Can someone who knows what articles these originally pointed to please find the articles in the "new" database on StarTrek.com and fix the links? Beerslayer 04:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

They don't exist on the new website. A lot of stuff that existed on the old website is nowhere to be found on the new. :( -- sulfur 10:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Are Star Trek video games considered canon?

Are Star Trek video games considered canon? --SuperTank17 10:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. :) -- Renegade54 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was seen or spoken on film or screen or written in an official final draft script or directly from the proverbial horse's mouth, then it's canon. I think TAS is still up in the air.--Babaganoosh 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TAS is not up in the air as far as Memory Alpha is concerned. That show is considered canon here. --From Andoria with Love 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We're using TAS as a resource like all the others - however, as the canon article describes, TAS is officially not considered to be a part of "the canon" as far as the production is concerned. -- Cid Highwind 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't Star Trek video games considered canon? Even if they consists of highly canon characters (for example Star Trek Bridge Commander consists of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Lieutenant Commander Data)--SuperTank17 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of our policy on the matter. See the canon link noted above or the policy for our take on things. Memory Beta does consider them part of the bigger picture for their wiki however. -- Sulfur 18:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does that also includes technical data about canon ships like the Akira-class or Galaxy-class in Star Trek Bridge Commander? --SuperTank17 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If it wasn't said or seen on screen (in a graphic listing the technical data, for example) it's not canon here. --Jörg 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But here's the discription of canon: "A large body of licensed Star Trek works exists that, while approved for publication by Paramount, is not considered part of Star Trek canon. This includes novels, comics, games, and older reference books such as the Star Fleet Technical Manual." And before the intro there's a paramount logo in Bridge Commander. I think this is a good proof that BC is canon. --SuperTank17 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all not considered canon here, at MA. --Jörg 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All the logo means is that it's licensed by Paramount, just as the novels, comics, and reference books are (and other products such as Star Trek: The Experience) - none of which are considered canon, either by Paramount or MA. -- Renegade54 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And please re-read your quote... "A large body of licensed Star Trek works exists [...] that is not considered part of Star Trek canon." Bridge Commander is one of those items. Licensed, and approved for publication, but not "part of Star Trek canon." It's really that simple. TV and films are canon, everything else is merely licensed. -- Sulfur 21:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole talk about what's canon and what isn't canon seems so silly to me. Here's my description of canon: Anything can be canon unless it collides in someway with the main story. So for example for me and me individually Star Trek: Bridge Commander is as canon as one can be. But I see that my opinion is a little too democratic for this community so I guess I'll go to Memory Beta and help them prosper because apparently they're past that whole canon or not canon thing. --SuperTank17 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear that you will add the info from Bridge Commander to Memory Beta, because that is the perfect place to add those interesting background bits. It's good if we work together with the other two Star Trek wikis. Some stuff that doesn't belong here can be added to MB, and stuff that doesn't belong there (like fan fiction) can be added to the Expanded Universe wiki. --Jörg 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, though, nothing that is added on those wikis can be added here. Hee-hee ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How?

"Memory Beta–A Star Trek encyclopedia that uses information from both canon and non-canon sources licensed by Paramount."

That means Memory Beta can consists of all the information gathered here and the "non-canon" information.

BTW I saw that MA misses some obvious facts and information from "canon" sources. I actually saw that in the article about Galaxy-class starship no one even mentioned the possibility of traveling at warp 9.8 which was mentioned by Lieutenant Commander Data in the first episode of TNG. --SuperTank17 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MA, like any wiki, is a work in progress. If information is missing from an article, and if this information is based on a source defined as canon here, every user is welcome to add it to this collective work to make MA more complete and more correct. --Jörg 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand but... It's just so obvious... it's not like Data said it in a riddle or something. He said it plain and simple. I couldn't believe everyone just missed it... --SuperTank17 12:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Warp 9.8 thingamajig is, very obviously, already a part of that article - please have a look at the sidebar, right at the top of the article. You must have missed that... Generally, feel free to add things we really missed to appropriate articles (complete with a proper citation), or bring it up on related talk pages. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was kinda joking... although, I kinda wasn't. Memory Beta and the Expanded wiki have non-canon and fanon information that we do not use. Basically, as Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry himself stated, what's on-screen (meaning, in officially-made movies and TV shows) is canon; everything else is not. That's about the long and short of it. --From Andoria with Love 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To Cid Highwind. But It was me who added it. Take a look at history records of the article and you'll see that I added the max warp speed. --SuperTank17 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Supertank, I have to appreciate your addition of that data to the Galaxy-class article. Collaborations between contributors continuing to improve this wiki, even at this late date, are truly what makes our community special. Thank you.

As an admin, I have to get this Forum page back on track -- your question has been answered and now we are getting into the area of off-topic discussion, which probably means this discussion is closed.

To recap, I think the key difference that might not be understood by some is judging "canon" versus "licensed" is who it was made by -- Star Trek TV series and movies were made by Paramount Pictures (or Paramount Television, or Paramount Viacom, or CBS Paramount, or Paramount Desilu, but hopefully you get the point) -- every Trek TV series or movie was made by the company that owns the rights to the Star Trek copyright.

Video games, books and other "licensed" sources are licensed by Paramount but are not made by Paramount.

• "Bridge Commander" was made by Activision (Activision was licensed to use the ST name by Paramount, thats why their logo is there).
• "Star Trek: New Frontier" was made by Pocket Books (Pocket was licensed to use the ST name by Paramount, thats why their logo is there).

Get it now? -- Captain MKB 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

This page could use an update. Since it's a community page, I thought it best to put this up for discussion before doing anything. - Archduk3 22:20, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

By update... what are you suggesting? -- sulfur 00:34, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wording, spelling, and format updates mainly. Being a bit more firm on what the the canon policy is, since I could see someone being confused by the wording of the first section and thinking approved bg sources are canon. The "Why are you so strict about "canonicity" anyway?" section needs to reworded at the very least. Also, adding any new FAQs, or expanding the current ones to include the specific questions Star Trek and Star Trek Online have brought up that are already covered. - Archduk3 01:13, January 17, 2010 (UTC)