Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
Resource policy/Research policy archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.

Reference works Edit

"Greetings!" (Data, Star Trek: First Contact)

I would like to make a suggestion to add The Klingon Dictionary to the list of "Reference works created by production staff". It fulfills all required conditions. -- Klingonteacher (talk) 13:30, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that there's currently a discussion on MA/de on whether to allow "Klingon spelling" from this book to appear in all sorts of articles. Even if we add this book to that list (I'm currently not sure if we should), it shouldn't mean that these information snippets can be added to articles here. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:20, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Danke, dass du mir in den Rücken fällst! (no offense, just kidding ;-)

Yes, I admit that it was me who started that discussion, and I never intended to keep that a secret fact. Actually, I figured that it will not be easily possible to change the Resource Policy, so I didn't want to bother starting from that point again. On the other hand it seemed that the Klingon Dictionary might be at least accepted as an additional resource, so that at least we could add the Klingon information to the background information. That's the only reason I requested to add that specific book to the list.

To be honest though, I will start the request about using the klingon spelling at a different place ;-) Please no comments about that here. -- Klingonteacher (talk) 17:43, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I, personally, have no issue with Klingon translations (etc) being used in the BG notes and only using the translations in the main text when they were used on screen. In that sense, it's much like any other piece of licensed material in that we can present it as "Book X stated Y". -- sulfur (talk) 17:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary materialsEdit

Moved from User talk:Sulfur...

I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of confusing inconsistencies here:

  1. @1 Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual is not written by a member of the production staff. Author Joseph never has been. Some portion were used by production staffers, but not created by them. It should IMHO be listed under item 4. (FYI, the franchise has officially debunked his work, along with several contemporary others of its kind, de facto demoting it to apocryphal status - Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 11, p. 71)
  2. @4 Point3: "Any authorized non-fiction reference works (for example, blueprints)"; the example given is very confusing (especially since their is such a plethora of fan-ones), unless these concern blueprints of the actual sets, blueprints such as the Star Trek: The Next Generation USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints or the cut-away posters are by definition fictional. A far better and more clear example would be The Physics of Star Trek
  3. @4 Last five points; Should IMO been listed under item 3, even if not used they were produced by officially employed writers, script supervisors, producers, production illustrators, prop builders and the like. The last point even contradicts the heading of section 4 :)....For your consideration, Regards -- Sennim (talk) 14:34, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
In terms of item 1, it does denote "portions". Those portions (listed on the page of the item itself) were actually used (exactly as is) in Star Trek productions, so therefore, they are (by definition) perfectly acceptable to use. There is also a note about that on the page. I've linked directly to that section on the resource policy now in the hopes that it is clearer. I've not had a real chance to look at the other two items as yet, but will do so when I have a bit more time later (if posssible). -- sulfur (talk) 16:24, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, but the point I was trying to make was that these portions (and there are really not that many) were lifted from Joseph's work and used after the fact, but not created by production staffers. I know it's just semantics, but is is in contradiction with the caption of the section "Reference works created by production staff", which Joseph never has been, and for the record, never has received an official credit for it either. If we leave the situation as is (which is fine by me, but I think it can be confusing for novices), then speaking from a consistency point of view, stuff like the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology and certain materials from FASA's Star Trek: The Role Playing Game should be listed as well as some artwork lifted from these also made on-screen appearances...Surely, this can not be the intent? -- Sennim (talk) 17:16, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

The Supplementary resources section needs to be clarified Edit

The Supplementary resources part of the Resource policy needs to be rewritten to clarify its meaning.

The In-universe resources section makes it clear that categories 1, 2 and 3 are in descending order of precedence. The Supplementary resources section doesn’t mention any order of precedence, so it’s not clear if categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in descending order of precedence or if all the categories are equal.

Category 1. Reference works created by production staff should be reworded to clarify that the 5 books listed below are the only books in the category as opposed to being examples of the category. Why is the Star Fleet Technical Manual listed here? It was not created by production staff. If the only parts of it that are accepted are the diagrams seen in the movies, then that's already covered by Visual material (what is seen), so the Star Fleet Technical Manual doesn't need to be listed.

Why does category 4. Reference works created by non-production staff mention Star Trek: Star Charts and The Making of Star Trek, even though these were created by production staff? Either these books should be removed from the category or the category heading should be changed to All other reference books.

Alternatively, the whole policy could be simplified by saying that a newer supplementary resource always supersedes an older supplementary resource. This eliminates the need for 4 categories and wouldn’t cause any problems for the wiki. NetSpiker (talk) 11:39, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

In regard to the second of your paragraphs, there is no order of precedence for the Supplementary resources section, as it doesn't say there is one. If there was one, it would say so. --Defiant (talk) 11:55, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

Sulfur said there is an order of precedence. At least that's how I understood this quote: "No. I'm arguing that the order was determined that #1 only includes the specific items listed there." NetSpiker (talk) 12:10, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

The order of precedence is 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. As in, if something is in #1, it trumps #4. That's the order. They are numbered for a reason, as opposed to being an unordered list.
Do note that the book you keep parroting as being by Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, is actually by Susan Sackett, with comments from Roddenberry. Thus, it falls into category #3.
For visual material from the Star Fleet Technical Manual, the book's images (that were used on screen) can be used for things that were not clear on screen due to the resolution/etc.
I've put a minor rewording on a couple of items which should,. hopefully, satisfy your wording requests above.
And no, newer doesn't always trump older. There's such a thing as a retcon. It happens all the time. -- sulfur (talk) 12:31, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes.

Newer material trumping older material is exactly what a retcon is. The only example I can think of where older material trumps newer material is how the line in Fury about Tuvok turning 100 is ignored in favor of the line in Flashback which says he was 29 years old in 2293. NetSpiker (talk) 13:43, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

I'm in partial, but only partial, agreement with NetSpiker, in that I think that categories 1 and 2 should be switched IMHO; reference works were written after the fact (with the potential of mis-remembrances), whereas scripts and such were used during the fact. To me at least, it seems the more logical order of precedence: My two cents...--Sennim (talk) 15:37, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. --Defiant (talk) 15:53, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

Even the final version of a script often has massive differences from the finished episode or movie, whereas a reference book written after the movie will be consistent with the movie. Furthermore, scripts are often hard for the average person to get. TOS, TAS, VOY and ENT scripts were never published and most are not even available on eBay. It is for these reasons that I have a very low regard for scripts. NetSpiker (talk) 01:40, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

This is where the subsection below split off. The following comment was split between sections after the fact.
This discussion seems built on confusion: the original poster essentially demanded that the policy is rewritten so it would fit their idea of how things ought to be, and Sulfur has already complied rewriting the precedence thing, stating that that's the way the policy always ought to have read. Not only do I think that's not a clearly true fact, but the supplementary resources parts of the policy only really deals with what to put in background sections anyway. What can be used to name unnamed things is instead specified in the in-universe resources section, which does not give further guidelines. It kinda makes sense that the supplementary resources section could help with that, but as the policy is written now that's an assumption people are making, not fact. If the policy needs to change it needs to change, but it seems people are arguing based on their own sometimes incorrect assumptions about what the policy already is is not helpful. The fact that this doubles as a free for all for pet peeves also doesn't help. I mean, how do retcons even figure into this? I'm not aware of any case where the STE or the star charts have retconned an ep, but since this discussion is ultimately only about which names might be used for unnamed things, I don't see how that plays into it. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:07, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

Reformat Edit

  1. Materials from a production:
    • Any writer/director's guide for a Star Trek series, aka "Writer's Bible"
    • Any writer/director's technical manual for a Star Trek series, aka "Which Button Do I Push to Fire the Phasers?"
    • Any scripts of a production, with the provision that spelling can be used, but will not take precedence over spelling seen on-screen
    • Deleted or alternative takes of scenes from productions as compared to those from the most complete release, such as the difference between a remastered or director's cut when compared to an original or theatrical release
    • Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in a production, even if they existed in real life [THIS WORDING HERE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED]
    • Film and television teasers, trailers, or other promotional material
    • Materials from undeveloped projects and episodes, such as Star Trek: Phase II
    • Any other behind-the-scenes or production material
  2. Materials from members of a production:
  3. Materials about a production:

Since this is under discussion, I figure I may has well throw my hat in as well.

It's always kinda bugged me that there are 4 sections instead of three, since it really seems to boil down to [the above.]

None of this is what I would call a "final" draft, but I think this makes more sense, and like I said, it's been bugging me for awhile. - Archduk3 03:51, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

This comment was split between this and the section above after the fact.
Moving on to the next topic, I think Archduk3 's organization makes sense, but shouldn't be in the third section? They may have an exceptional amount of acces to production, but ultimately it's as much a separate operation as the star charts are. Also note that that reorganization would not help with the Vegan issue, the two options are on the same first tier. Also, Archduk3, since this has essentially no bearing on the other discussion (ie it's a good or bad idea regardless of what happens with the policy), would it may be more productive to move that to a separate section for clearness? -- Capricorn (talk) 06:07, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

If you see a way to seperate this, I'm OK with it. I literally only suggested this because I was thinking about it last just a week ago.

The order of items in the sections are pretty much cut and paste from the current list, and the wording and placement of these can, and should, be tweaked. That said, I placed there based on its current placement in the policy, which might be left over from before they fired the original staff there. Parts of it would certainly fall under #2, but most of it now is definitely #3. - Archduk3 06:49, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

As I was part of the original discussions on creating this way back in the day, my minor edits were trying to clarify things up there. And yes, Archduk3 is right, the placing is based on the old site, which was chock full of material from the actual production. The new site... isn't. Sadly, it's a lot more like a fan site now than it was.
A fun wrinkle in all of this will be the newest version of the Encyclopedia when it comes out later this year. It's unclear how much will be changed in that and what it will include, and I worry that people are going to traipse in, viewing it as canon, and want to rename 90% of the articles based on it... :) -- sulfur (talk) 10:04, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
Hence my original switching suggestion :-) In regard to the new Enc edition, my suspicion is that the Okudas, judging from what they have done on the last ed., will not change that much in existing copy...They have after all their hands full incorporating the missing info...Btw, I very much like Duke's new ordering system (including the demotion of, and yeah, we probably should split off this particular discussion...--Sennim (talk) 10:25, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

Split this off and did some work on the list, mostly updating the wording, order, and examples? Marked some wording that needs improvement too. To this day I have no idea what the tagged on bit of that sentence is suppose to mean. - Archduk3 06:42, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

The way I understand it, stuff that was created for a production, but ultimately not featured therein, due to scenes being trimmed and/or deleted, but you're right, would befit from more clarified writing. Some additional thoughts:
  • In regard to Star While the general production/in-universe stuff is currently indeed crap, there are still cast/staff profiles and interviews (the latter in particular) featured which are still very good and valid resource material; a separate, clarifying note perchance?
  • In regard to the Star Fleet Tech Manual: I think this should be knocked down a notch or three as well (-> section 2, below TNG manual) It is true that some portions were used, but it were not that many, whereas the rest is currently hopelessly outdated and more apocryphal that anything else. I'm aware of its revered status, but having it listed so high up the "foodchain", only reinforces the firm belief still held by some of the more, shall we say, starstruck fanboys, it being some sort of a "bible".
  • In regard to "documentaries or "making of" publications": I think these should be higher up (-> 2, under "Closed-captioned"), as these were almost indiscriminately made with the input of production staffers, some of them even (co-)written by them, the officially authorized/licensed ones in particular. Possible distinction between authorized/un-authorized (i.e. the Schuster & Schuster publications)?
On a final note, while I was writing down the last note, it occurred to me, that some distinction between "in-universe" and "real world" might be beneficial, if feasible at all,
  • Section 1: purely "in-universe"
  • Section 2: Mixed
  • section 3: purely production POV
Some thoughts...--Sennim (talk) 09:38, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
I see Sennin making a remark on moving something under "Closed-captioned". Sorry if I have been dim so far, but are the individual materials under each category supposed to be in order of preference too? Never even occurred to me that that might be the case :s
re the Star Fleet Technical Manual and Sennin's concern: I think it just needs a rewording. Currently the what's actually going on with the SFTM is only alluded too (very odd for a policy page). It would be better to just say that if a schematic from the SFTM was seen on-screen, the STFM can be used to look at it in more detail. It's just a special case of the "Portions of sets" list item.
re Archduk3's comment on tagged on the tagged on sentence, which sentence are you referring to?
re the sentence "Information from the production staff, IE: interviews or material add[ed] directly to MA from verified archivists" - I take it that second part refers to those cases where production staff like for example Sussman have come to the site and started adding background factoids? Assuming that's the case, I think the sentence is a bit vague and could be clearer. How about "IE: interviews or material added directly to MA from verified production staff".
Also, and I've put this last but I think it's very important, one concern I'm having is this: the way the policy is currently written the list (be it the old one or a new one) is intended to regulate what factoids can be put in background sections. But in discussion above this one people are arguing that it should be used to determine to which noncanon names for unnamed things preferences should be given. I think the new list makes little sense for that purpose. Two examples: writer's bibles, which often differ significantly from how the setting and characters turned out, trump the encyclopedia. And, a favorite source of ours for planet names, sits at the same level (yet in the correct category) as the star charts which we've never dare think of using that way. Again, all those things are not remotely issues if the list is just for background information (and the order to put it in), but using such a list to name things is a completely different game. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:43, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

A few brief replies before the longer ones:
This list is for production POV material, so I don't see a way to note the difference between "in-universe" and "real world" here, and I'm a little unclear to what that was getting at.
The order of materials in each category is not an order of preference per say, just an orderly list of the types of materials that would fall into the category.
See "[THIS WORDING HERE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED]" for the sentence with the weird tagged on bit. I'm assuming that it was added for a reason, I just can't fathom what that reason is if it's not for props that are real life products. If that's correct, it might be best to just state that separately right below.
Please feel free to directly edit the list.
I've moved the SFTM to section 3 since it's the same as the Star Trek Blueprints, in that parts of it were used on-screen but were not made for the production or by a member of a production. I've attempted to clarify the "on-screen" aspect too.
This list isn't suppose to be a "what can be used for naming unnamed things and the order of preference." The "Tolerance in valid resources" further down in the policy states that conflicts can be resolved by siding with the material with a higher precedence, but not always. This was written for the defined precedence for material on-screen, but it also covers this list. I think that leaves deciding what material should be considered "more important" open to whichever side can make the better argument, and I tend to favor that over a defined list. I just don't like the idea of a list here stopping a consensus from being reached between conflicting material simply because at one time was a better site. - Archduk3 18:02, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Disregard my "in-universe" and "real world" ramblings; overlooked the fact we were already in POV mode, my bad, sorry for the confusion...The list as now is however, can surely meet with my approval...Some additional suggestions though:
@"[THIS WORDING HERE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED]"-bit; suggest merging it with the directly above point, akin to something like this:
  • Deleted, alternative or trimmed takes of scenes from productions compared to the version as eventually featured, or compared to the most complete release of a production, such as the difference between a remastered or director's cut and an original or theatrical release; this includes (portions of) sets, props, makeup, costumes, special and visual effects [Personal note: stuff like D4 class (concept)], designed, produced and/or utilized for these scenes, but were ultimately not seen on-screen in a production as featured, or replaced in a later version of an original production.
the "this includes (portions of) sets, props, makeup, costumes, special and visual effects, designed, produced and utilized for"-bit could also be added, or incorporated as examples in the "undeveloped projects and episodes"...should take care of the "NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED", I think.
@Scripts: Suggest this version:
  • Any scripts of a production, with the provision that spelling and subject/object designation can be used, but will not take precedence over spelling and subject/object designation seen or heard on-screen. Furthermore, final – as in the one actually adhered to for a production – draft versions take precedence in order of date over earlier ones.--Sennim (talk) 10:25, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Production sources used for naming things Edit

Maybe the next step could be to clarify what are valid resources for naming things under the Livingston clause. Currently, the policy just says "production sources". was used to name several species like Pentaran, but in the new supplementary resources policy it is actually at the VERY bottom of the list; so can it really be valid source for naming things. There also issues with the aliens from Star Trek: The Motion Picture and, much more seriously, from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home like the Xelatians. For them the only source seems to be the Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update, which really is no production source in the traditional sense. Kennelly (talk) 13:06, June 8, 2016 (UTC) is still a production source on the list, so it can still be used. This list is not meant to be the final say, it's meant to be the fairly common sense starting point. The numbered headings are the really important parts IMO. I'm not fimilar enough with the other issues to weigh in, but the bgnote seems to explain the source for the names from ST IV, so is the issue the lack of a mention here? I know there's still issues with Vegan/Rhaandarite name thing too. - Archduk3 04:59, June 9, 2016 (UTC) is in the section "Materials about a production", which for me is an inferior category since it is maintained by people not involved at all in the actual production of the series/films. If I started working at, I theoretically could invent all sorts of names for unnamed things and thus make them canon, is that really the intention? Regarding the ST IV issue, it seems for example the name of the Efrosians is derived from official publicity photos, which is valid I guess, but for the Xelatians FASA apparently just made it up? Kennelly (talk) 09:37, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Renaming quirk Edit

I was looking at the policy this morning and remembered being part of the creation of the very original policy (back when it was "MA:CANON"). The current text reads:

There are only two exceptions where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe:
  1. To name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name, and
  2. For dating certain events in the Star Trek universe where no "hard" date was given.

My recollection of the original discussions was that the intent was to allow the full names to come from the scripts or production sources when we either didn't have a name at all, or only had a portion of the name and ESPECIALLY when we wanted to avoid disambiguating the article title.

So, I'd like to suggest a minor alteration here to meet that very original "dark ages" intent, specifically to allow or application of such production materials (still in the accepted order listed) to enable us to avoid possible disambiguations [ie "Hill (Doctor)" vs "Richard Hill"] and give people full names in the database, especially on article titles.

Based on this, I'd like to also ask that we do not apply that clause to move (or un-move) articles until this discussion is complete.

Thoughts welcome. -- sulfur (talk) 17:35, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Many people may not be aware of a main character's scripted first name (such as DeSalle, who most would remember simply as "DeSalle") and wouldn't search for them as such. They would look for their last names. Last names, therefore, where no disambiguation page exists (as there's only one by that last name, real world or in-universe) should be maintained always as redirects, and the policy's revisions should state this.
Obviously this doesn't apply with Hill. It's worth noting that that particular page is the only hill with a bracket disambiguation. Hill itself is a redirect for "mountain". So there's no "Hill (lieutenant)", etc...--LauraCC (talk) 17:42, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, but mostly irrelevant for now, since this seems to be the edit where the "modern" wording originated. The implications and details of the original text is the question at hand. - Archduk3 17:46, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

With respect to Mr. DeSalle, using the search bar at the top, the first thing that comes up is "Vincent DeSalle". Then eventually if you have the whole "DeSalle" word typed out, it finally pushed to the redirect. With the search engine finally being halfway decent, I don't see as much of a need for the redirects. -- sulfur (talk) 17:54, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I suppose not. --LauraCC (talk) 17:58, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
At the very least, the "modern" wording didn't seem to be a point of discussion beyond allowing "soft" years in, on site at least, after the change to the policy were made. I haven't had time to read everything in the archive again though, so maybe there was something about this before, or after, this point. - Archduk3 18:47, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
If we get down to the nuts and bolts of it all, these script-based given names are nothing more than superficial affectations that change nothing in the overall scheme of things. We have the ability to retain links/redirects for the scripted full names for posterity, while maintaining the article under the pure canon title DeSalle, so all in all, it's not a huge deal. As these references are again, superficial, the information can still be retained in the background information, and we are really just making a mountain out a molehill.
But since we are discussing it, I do want to bring up the case of Ms. Jana Haines, who like the aforementioned example(s), was only called by her surname in the episode, but credited as "Jana Haines" in the end credits. While I suppose you could argue that the end credits are "public resource" vs. the limited accessibility of a "script resource", either way, they are are still both being superficially named "after the fact", rather than "up front" in the episode. That may be a one off example, but it's just something else to add to the list of considerations.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 22:03, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, meant more like a comment then a vote, but tbh my preference would be to not add first names from scripts at all, even if it helps with disambiguation. At the end of the day they're not canon, and while we allow non-canon names in some cases I think that's a pretty radical thing to do, a kind of blemish on our intentions to just have canon Trek in in-universe articles. To be clear I'm not against that practice as a whole, because sometimes it just makes things enormously more easy, but I think it should be a last resort action, limited only to cases where it's absolutely necessary. And this in my mind doesn't reach that level - even a more clunky disambiguation isn't exactly the end of the world.
(but then, I am also the person that is uneasy with historical figures getting articles at their full names when only their last name was mentioned) -- Capricorn (talk) 23:41, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether or not a name is canon? A full name is always preferable to a partial name, in my opinion. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:55, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
Per policy we can't introduce non-canon info in the articles. This measure doesn't quite do that, it's more of a loophole where the non-canon name is used as a convenient shorthand without us declaring it an extra bit of canon information. But on the other hand, it kinda looks like it does do that, and in my opinion that makes it inelegant as far as solutions go - even if it is something necessary, it's not a beautiful solution. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:50, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between the names they were originally meant to have, bestowed upon them by writers(like LaSalle's "Vincent"), names given by actors (such as Jae's), and names given after the fact by book authors. Those in the first category are what was intended and nothing contradicts it - nobody believes LaSalle is like Cher or Spock with only one name he's ever called by anyone. Those in the second category have more weight if someone calls them that onscreen. Those in the third are not canon.
Then you get sticky situations like Erit, but this person was only mentioned, not seen, so what name they get is not on a cast list somewhere. So we leave it there. --LauraCC (talk) 15:36, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
I think I should point out that there are a lot of characters with script-only first names or last names in their article titles. If we decide that this isn't acceptable, they'll all have to be renamed. I haven't counted them, but my guess is that there's more than 30. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:22, January 20, 2017 (UTC)
Those in the first and second categories aren't canon either, they're just to some extent permitted in this policy anyway - different thing. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:55, January 20, 2017 (UTC)
So, having thought on this for a few days, I have to come down on the side of the policy as worded now, in that we shouldn't use bg sources to avoid disambiguations or fill out a part of a name that wasn't given. That said, I would support changing the current wording to allow for bg info to modify partial or assumed names for mirror or alternate reality counterparts. I'm mainly drawing the line at Richard Robau instead of R. Robau and Maximilian Forrest v. Maxwell Forrest (mirror). Credits are also generally considered to be "canon" for names, if we want that to be written in as well.
That said, if I had a better idea of the pages enforcing the policy as written would actually effect, it might lend some weight to keeping these. I can see the usefulness of emphasizing the "in-universe" (accessible) over the "canon" (accurate), but I think MA is the resource it is because we try to stick to what's on screen, even if it's a bit detrimental on the technical side. - Archduk3 20:47, January 22, 2017 (UTC)
Here's a list of character pages where the first name or last name comes from the script:
Albert Macklin
Annie Meyers
Anthony Haftel
April Anaya
Arik Soong
Basso Tromac
Clark Terrell
Corbin Entek
Daniel Sutter
Dawson Walking Bear
Day Kannu
Doris Atkins
Elizabeth Cutler
Emilita Mendez
Eric Burton
Erika Benteen
Erika Hernandez
Etana Jol
Faith Garland
Firek Goff
Firek Plinn
Francisca Juarez
Galis Blin
Gannet Brooks
George Stocker
Hal Moseley
Harry Morrow
Jackson Keene
Jeff Carlson
Keith Craig
Kevin Mulkahey
Kay Eaton
Kell Perim
Keyla Terrana
Leslie Thompson
Lily Sloane
Linda Larson
Lisa Neeley
Magda Kovacs
Mariah Henley
Martin Benbeck
Matthew Dougherty
Maximilian Forrest
Miral Paris
Orfil Quinteros
Orfil Solis
Paul Gordon
Peter Lin
Rex Denning
Richard Robau (actually from a promotional website, not a script)
Richard Galen
Ruth Bonaventure
Sara Kingsley (actually from the TNG Companion)
Sarah MacDougal
Seth Mendoza
Stefan DeSeve
Tess Allenby
Vaatrik Pallra
Willie Hawkins
--NetSpiker (talk) 03:25, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
Huh, never thought of the credits as canon as opposed to be a permitted source. But in a way it kinda makes sense, it's part of the aired episode or film.
Regarding the using background sources for disambiguation purposes, the thing with that is that you then either have to always use them, or you're arbitrarily assigning characters a surname or not based on out-of-universe factors. Which given that those names are read in in-universe contexts doesn't make much sense. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:42, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
If we decide that using first and last names from the script is acceptable, Hill (Doctor) would become Richard Hill, Bobby would become Bobby Abrams and Zahra would become Zahra Jamal. If we decide it's not, 63 pages will have to be renamed. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:50, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
Which would be a long and involved process, to be sure. But that's beside the point; we shouldn't just pick the easy way out because it's easy. We should pick it because it's the correct choice.
I realize that nothing anybody else does on any other wikia has anything to do with why we may opt for one option over the other, but at the very least, does anyone know how other (trying to be complete and accurate, not just some fan who tries it, gains a few users, and gets bored after a week, leaving others to continue on without expressly asking them to) wikias are handling this issue? A different perspective on this problem with rationale for why they ultimately chose to do it how they did might bring up something we can't immediately think of. --LauraCC (talk) 16:01, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
This is a wiki, which happens to be "hosted" by wikia at the moment, but it is in no way a "wikia", because that is not a thing beyond the company. Even wikia and their shills have back off from using that term, so don't invalidate yourself and your opinions anymore than you have to by using that corporate brand to identify something where there is already a perfectly good, and correct, word to use. That said, it doesn't matter what other wikis have done, because they aren't us, and aren't beholden to our policies, which is kinda the point here. Should we be doing what the policy says, or do we need to amend that to cover some of the things we have been doing instead? This issue isn't so complicated we need a second, irrelevant opinion. - Archduk3 18:00, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a correct choice or an incorrect choice in this case. It's all about personal preferences. Personally, I've never understood why a lot of fans choose to dismiss the scripts, novels, comics and games, and only focus on a tiny fraction of the Star Trek universe just because Paramount declared it canon. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:54, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
Since this topic is now starting to contribute heavily to the remaining "page move suggestions", in addition to it having been almost 3 months since this was last discussed, I think the clarifications to the policy should note the circumstances, whereas:
  1. Names from onscreen will always take precedence;
  2. Names on displays/uniforms (MACOs) will be used when not in conflict with established or previously established names from dialog/script;
  3. Names from end credits will be used when no onscreen sources exist, where any additional given or surnames will be treated as if taken from onscreen, and so noted;
  4. Names from scripts (deleted or otherwise) and comparable production sources will be used when no onscreen sources exist, but the inclusion of additional given or surnames will be treated as extraneous, and can exist as a redirect to onscreen name, and so noted.
I don't think the MACO nametag debacle has been previously included in this discussion, but something needs to keep this ball rolling. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:49, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Writer's drafts of scripts Edit

I notice this page states, "Any scripts of a production [are usable as background information], with the provision that [...] script versions take precedence in order of date." However, I've recently learned (thanks to Larry Nemecek) that scripts labelled "writer's draft" (or something similar, like "writers' draft" or "writer's work draft") are generally not production-used scripts but are usually each the last (or pending) draft of a spec script which is written before the writing staff "breaks" the story. Sometimes, the writer's draft differs significantly from the eventual story (as was the case with TNG: "Rascals" and its "writer's first draft", which had the working title "Maker of Dreams"). So, should writer's draft scripts still be allowed for bginfo? --Defiant (talk) 08:27, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

One way to look at this would be to say that once a story gets produced, any element of its history could be seen as part of its production process, even work that led up to the greenlight instead of following from it. Note for example how Rick Berman used experiences from a trip to Afghanistan to coin the term Suliban, and we still feel that's worthy of mention despite that trip not remotely being part of the production process. Of course, there may still be limits on how to use this stuff. Background notes seem ok to me, but for example using those scripts to name things, I'm less sure about that.
In a more meta-sense, I think that we have a lot of notes based on those scripts that seem as interesting and relevant as notes from later scripts, and it would be a shame to have to remove that. If the policy as written now is deemed as not allowing that, then I'd prefer rewording the policy over cutting information on how the story evolved. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:45, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Capricorn for pretty much the same reasons...these drafts, regardless of their "official" status (but as far as I'm concerned valid BGinfo production sources nonetheless), provide insight into the story development process, going a long way explaining why it was what we ultimately saw onscreen. In this, it is identical to the production design process; even designs (of starships for example) that do not come to fruition help to get the final design onto the screen, and we do consider this valid BGinfo...As for naming stuff (when none is available in canon, or in any other contemporary "official" production info), I'm still okay with the current standing policy, considering (and provided) that these drafts were still written by the official staff for an official production. It is not that much different from using a name that was never featured in any official iteration at the time, but coined by (former) production staff after-the-fact (such as the Intrepid-type for example, or the names derived after-the-fact form the Encyclopedia), and actually, the latter seems tot have occurred more often, as I cannot think of an instance at the moment when a name was used from a draft as an article title...On a side-note, Defiant's observation on the status of drafts, is a worthwhile mention in an production POV article, if we have one on the writing process (which, if I'm not mistaken, we don't)...Sennim (talk) 10:29, February 12, 2017 (UTC) Edit

Can someone clarify's place in the resource policy? In some cases, a name from has been used as an article title (Mislenite), but in other cases it hasn't (Peliar Zel native instead of Pelian). Although the resource policy says that information from can only be used for background info, in some cases, it has been included in the article's main body, such as Beverly Crusher's middle name Cheryl and Wesley Crusher's middle name Robert. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:44, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Those may be throwbacks to when this wasn't in the policy. Did you mean to say "can someone clarify's"...etc? --LauraCC (talk) 16:20, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
The original Mislenite article dates back to 2004, before many of the resource policies were formulated, and everything was more or less the "Wild West". I think it's one example of something that's just slipped through the cracks over the years. It should probably have a pna on it for discussion, and then be renamed. Anything else you find like that, where there seems to be an inconsistency, please feel free to question the information and put a pna on the article. That's the only way we can keep things both accurate and consistent. Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:11, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
Production material and production staff members are the only acceptable sources for naming unnamed things. The only part of tier 3 sources that can be used for that are if they are also a tier 1 or 2 source, such as an interview for, or a production sketch seen in, a documentary. - Archduk3 00:01, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Website statistics? Edit

Are these viewership figures from Netflix acceptable as a bginfo source? --Defiant (talk) 05:16, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

We've now also got this to ponder whether we can add info from it: --Defiant (talk) 08:03, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

The second (the Discovery writers) is definitely ok as we have similar opinions on a number of episode pages from writers/producers of later series. This is relevant because it informs how they approached their own Star Trek works.
I don't have any objection to the first either, so long as the statistics are properly contextualised (i.e. noting that this is according to Netflix as of a certain date)--Cleanse ( talk ) 08:31, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of this page needs to change, then, as it states that one of the types of invalid resources is "websites, unless information is also contained in a valid reference, with the provision that links to non-commercial external websites of interest can be included in an 'external links' or similar section." Judging by that statement, the info from these links wouldn't be permitted, and yet the MA community seems to be okaying it so far. Hmmm... --Defiant (talk) 08:42, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think the intention behind that sentence is "Don't put in-universe facts that you just found on some website". But the way it is written states that you can't use websites at all. That is contrary to practice, and also to MA:CYS.--Cleanse ( talk ) 09:04, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

DIS Klingon ship classesEdit

Per the Resource Policy, any behind-the-scenes/production material content is supposed to be relegated to an appendix or note.

Yet the Malachowski, Engle, Cardenas, etc. classes all have their own pages - despite never being named on-screen, only in production or auxiliary materials (e.g. Eaglemoss models, concept art), while the Bstlh, Daspu’, and others are relegated to either “catch—all” articles (“Unnamed Klingon ship classes”) or generically-named articles (“Klingon destroyer”), despite also having never been named on-screen.

And, per this Tweet, the Klingon class names are just as “official” as the UFP ships.

How come they aren’t in their own pages under their class names?

WTRiker (talk) 03:49, January 29, 2019 (UTC)

The thing naming them wasn't, or still isn't, released when those were created, just like the Federation ships had generic type names. Also, no one has gotten around to it yet. - Archduk3 05:39, January 29, 2019 (UTC)

So, if I made a Sech class article, I wouldn’t get yelled at? —-WTRiker (talk) 20:53, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Provided it has more than just the Eaglemoss reference, it should be fine. Eaglemoss is not a reference unto itself. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 21:54, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Since EM and Trek Online are so far the only material to use the class names, what if I paired EM with the aforementioned Tweet that all but explicitly confirms the class names are official? —WTRiker (talk) 22:19, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the new crew, but provided that guy works on Discovery that does make the names released by Eaglemoss before his tweet confirmed by a staff member, so number 2 on the production and reference materials list. STO isn't a resource we can use names from. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 22:27, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

In December, he was promoted from Vice President, Product Development at CBS Consumer Products to Vice President Star Trek Brand Management at CBS Studios, Global Franchise Management. So he is pretty much as “word of God” as can be. And 'Aviatrix' is DSC’s go-to Klingon translator. —WTRiker (talk) 22:51, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, he states the creator of the names to be Kirsten Beyer, who most definitely counts as a production source. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:50, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

That too! —WTRiker (talk) 23:59, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

All this, too, kind of opens up a larger discussion over the officialness/MA-worthiness if the novels. Per both Ted Sullivan and John Van Citters, the writer’s room treats the novels as canon. Especially since, as noted in the linked article: “One of the keys to this is that Discovery staff writer Kirsten Beyer is involved with the novels and co-writing the comics.”

Ted said it’s all considered canon by the writing staff until and unless an imperative need to override the novel content arises; too, JVC said that the novels are collaborated on in such a way as to *prevent* the writers from overriding the content of the novels. —WTRiker (talk) 23:59, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Remember that the writers of the new films treated the associated comics as "canon". Until they would need to override them. Which makes them less than canon by definition. Also, it doesn't mean that they are as per MA. -- sulfur (talk) 00:35, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
This is getting off-topic. Would it be permissible to create Klingon ship class articles using these names, now that we have confirmation from a CBS executive that they originated from a DIS production source? -- UncertainError (talk) 01:36, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

What they said. —WTRiker (talk) 02:00, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Maintain your indent.
Everyone above the show runner or whatever position Roddenberry held on TOS and TNG and Berman held on the rest is not "directly" involved with the production and is not a source for this type of info, due to conflicts of interest and lack of control over the actual content. A writer saying these are the names they will use if it comes up is #2 on the list while some executive who may be "god", but will never hold the pen writing the "bible" and is therefor not directly involved in the production would be most likely only a #3. Names for unnamed things should only ever come from #1 and #2.
As for the rest, what executives in "charge" of Star Trek say and the history of what they have said over the last 50+ years is the best argument for not giving what they say much credence. Since DIS is actively retconning things, I would be inclined to disregard everything everyone involved had to say, since if they change their mind later whats "just another" retcon, but the policy is the policy. - Archduk3 06:48, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm getting a "yes it's okay" from this. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:57, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
Provided the citation is correct, you would be right. - Archduk3 23:26, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

I'll see about getting started on it tonight! And sorry about the indent. Not 100% on MA formatting coding. —WTRiker (talk) 02:06, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Finally got around to it. Prototyped it with the Klingon destroyer/Qugh class. --WTRiker (talk) 04:41, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

I take it my prototype using the Qugh was okay? —WTRiker (talk) 17:26, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

It should look like any other page. Just refer to the SF pages, like Malachowski class. (Also, please keep adding your new comments on the bottom of the thread.) --Alan (talk) 21:24, February 15, 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that! And gotcha. But, since it’s not been reverted, I take it it’s cleared? —WTRiker (talk) 02:43, February 16, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.