Talk: Krada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Krada article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

DIS info[]

From User talk:Capricorn.

Hi, Capricorn. Firstly, please stop edit warring. Secondly, the page Memory Alpha:Resource policy specifically states that one thing which is permitted is to use production resources in order to "name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name." The krada in "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry" obviously falls into this category, as it will need to be listed on an unnamed food page instead otherwise. The example you cited, calling Dukat "Elmo" obviously doesn't fall into this category, because, with or without that first name, he would still have the last name "Dukat"; hence, he would still not be unnamed. --Defiant (talk) 18:47, January 2, 2020 (UTC)

You're doing more than naming something that's unnamed there, you're forging a connection between that unnamed food and a previously established one that does not exist when only looking at the canon.

Clearly, inserting claims by production personnel as if they are in-universe facts is ~~now~~ not allowed (fixed typo). So why should it suddenly be ok just because it happened as a side effect of applying a housekeeping rule? That's just exploiting a backdoor, and a simple rule of convenience shouldn't affect what is considered fact like that. If a rule meant to make things more convenient actually distorts things, then it shouldn't be applied, just like if applying formatting best practices messes up a page layout that formatting should be tweaked.

You're right that Elmo isn't analogous though, I threw it in as a generic absurdity without really analyzing it. Happy new year, by the way. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:08, January 2, 2020 (UTC)

Quote: "You're doing more than naming something that's unnamed there, you're forging a connection between that unnamed food and a previously established one that does not exist when only looking at the canon." The Resource policy page says nothing about, "You can only use production resources in order to name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name as long as there's no pre-existing reference to that name." Fair play if it did say that… but it doesn't. Fact.

Quote: "Inserting claims by production personnel as if they are in-universe facts is now allowed." If that was the case, "Mr. Krada Leg" would be referred to as if it were in-universe canon. Obviously, this is not the case. Lol. As for the rest, it looks like you're just trying to excuse not following the policies and guidelines when there is absolutely no reason to disregard them (they're not "rules", because you're right; they shouldn't be absolutely binding). Happy new year to you too. :) --Defiant (talk) 11:45, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I made a pretty bad typo there. That should read "not allowed", not "now allowed". Secondly, I can't help but get the feeling that you are treating all this as some kind of game where the purpose is to launder as much of the information you're reviewing to the site, at all cost. But just because the way a rule is written doesn't explicitly forbid something, doesn't mean you're forced to exploit that loophole. Keep some perspective, this isn't about winning at whatever goals you've set to gamify your hobby, this is about making the most definitive and accurate encyclopedia of all things Star Trek. And distorting in-universe fact because you can technically apply a naming rule with that result fails at that goal, badly. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:13, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I'm shocked by how far off the mark you are there. I definitely think you ought to pay attention to the policy that states assume good faith. After all, you don't even know me. Secondly, I think you need to realize I honestly do not agree with you. That isn't about playing some "game"; it's about people having a difference of opinion. I also think that, since this is the case, this issue would benefit from someone else having input here, so we can establish whether to follow the policies and guidelines or not in this case, based on what the consensus is. This can then serve as clearly much-needed precedent of what to do in cases such as this. --Defiant (talk) 22:04, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not implying you're playing a game as in some kind of mind game. For all of us, Memory Alpha is a hobby, something we do because we like it, and that shapes how we edit. That's where the game metaphor came from, and I'm sorry it hit so hard, I wouldn't have used it if I'd known that. What I was actually trying to say is that I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The trees being making edits, incorporating background information in your case, and the forest building an encyclopedia. Anywyay, I do agree we could use a third party opinion. Anyone else reading this? -- Capricorn (talk) 22:51, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

I think krada can be used as an in-universe name for the meat seen in the Discovery episode, since "After Trek" is a legitimate background source, but it doesn't really matter because the same information is still visible on the krada article either way. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:11, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

The resource policy does allow the unnamed meat in DIS to be named from the AT discussion, with a bginfo explanation, even though the name was already used for some unseen meat in DS9. That said, a picture would help. - Archduk 3 05:16, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

The background source wouldn't just name, but also create a link. Doesn't that bother you? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:53, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

There's no conflict that I'm aware of and it was apparently the production intent, so no, it doesn't bother me. I think the better question is why does it bother you? The DS9 reference is a throwaway line as far as I can tell, and I would bet the DIS writers only knew about it because we have an article on it here. To not connect these with the info we have would seem to be saying we don't want Star Trek writers to use MA. - Archduk 3 06:13, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

The meat in the DIS episode isn't named or identifiable on screen, i.e. it being krada meat isn't canon in any conventional definition of the word. I don't mind Livingston being called Livingston because it is understood (or so I thought) that that name is just a placeholder, usable but still not an in-universe fact, just a bit of sleight of hand so we don't have to call him "unnamed fish".

But that that rule can somehow result in production comments being used for more then placeholders or background sections, and instead direct how things are pieced together in the in-universe section of the encyclopedia, that seems like a major overreach to me. Making a strict distinction between what is shown and said on screen versus behind the scenes insights is at the very core of how this project is structured, and so I guess I find it hard to swallow that a rule of convenience can make an actor's joke cross that barrier and influence our account of the canon. So that, in a nutshell, is what bothers me. But apparently I'm the only one, so fair enough, that's that I suppose. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:52, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

Was it a joke, though? The way I read the background info is that at some point, it was identified as krada meat, and then at some point after that, jokes based on the name began occurring, not that the name was a joke to begin with. "The meat was not named on-screen but was identified as krada meat by Chieffo" and "During production [....] Chieffo and Voq actor Shazad Latif began joking..." -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:28, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, it's best not to assume stuff like that from bginfo. To answer your question about timing, there's no way to tell (hence, a chicken or the egg situation). I wrote it like that based on citations; Chieffo talks about the meat as being krada in two different sources, as far as I can find: the After Trek discussion and the tweet. She only references the joke in one of those, though: the AT chat. --Defiant (talk) 16:42, January 6, 2020 (UTC)