Canon?[]
Are the Very Short Treks canon or not? Lets decide before we start adding things like this. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Renegade54 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the trailer for very Short Treks said that they weren't canon at all--Jkirk8907 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Very Short Treks are clearly not set in the prime universe, as this article indicates, as for not being canon, well, that's a little more complicated. This is an official Star Trek production, not a comic book, novel, audio book, audio drama, video game, etc. It is in fact an on-screen official Star Trek production, made by Paramount and all the other production companies associated with her etc. Isn't that Memory Alpha's policy? To treat it as canon? Obviously we can't treat it as part of the prime universe, and this article doesn't actually do that. But it doesn't pretend it didn't happen either. Star Trek: The Animated Series has always been considered canon on Memory Alpha, even prior to 2006, when the powers-that-be were saying that it wasn't. These cartoons are kind of a contradiction, they are referred to as non-canon yet they are official on-screen productions. As far as I'm concerned, canon or not, they belong here, because they are official Treks. They might not be set in the prime universe but neither is a decent amount of post-2009 Trek that's considered canon. In any case, I shall refrain from making anymore pages associated with the show until a decision is made, but as I said, I do believe that Memory Alpha's policy agrees that this series is an official part of Star Trek, whether it's part of the prime universe or not. It's kind of like the Tribbles cereal. We all know it wasn't meant to be canon in the strictest sense of the word, nevertheless it was on screen, so we included it. --- Noah Tall (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, I didn't have enough time to write all this down last night, but I also believe that since these are clearly out of continuity, we could have some kind of "Out-of-Continuity" template at the top of each article that relates to the Very Short Treks. It could say something like this: "This article collects information from a source outside of the prime universe, Kelvin universe or any other known universe within the Star Trek multiverse; and as such, it might be considered non-canon." --- Noah Tall (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the trailer for very Short Treks said that they weren't canon at all--Jkirk8907 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that since the VSTs are explicitly made to be non-canon (unlike TAS), that they should be treated as apocrypha. They're basically like officially sanctioned fan films. I do agree that any articles based exclusively on them need a new banner, because alternate universes are still canon and these are outside that. -- UncertainError (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't treat it as the prime universe, but I still think we should include any references from the shorts and make articles as I did with this page. I saw that other people have made a few other pages as well. I agree that it needs to be treated as a seperate reality; heck, each episode probably is set in a different continuity. But as I said earlier, I still think we should include the episodes and content and references from them simply because they are official Star Trek episodes. Yes you're right, they aren't meant to be prime (or canon as they say); but they are still official, which warrants pages. For now the "Alternate realities" banner is being used apparently. I'm not sure who did that, but anyway, I guess that's good for now until we come up with another one or if we come up with another one. But just so I understand, you do agree that we should use the material from that series? --- Noah Tall (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, canon is not just the prime universe, but all alternate universes and timelines as well. Which is why I think VST material, if we include it (and I'm ambivalent on this point), should be put in the apocrypha section or use a new banner. It's not just an alternate reality, it's not in the Star Trek continuity at all if we take into account the intentions of the creators. -- UncertainError (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would define canon as what's shown on-screen, be it movies, TV shows, short films etc. All alternate universes and timelines could include stuff from comics, videogames, novels etc. Clearly those aren't canon. But anyway, that's probably what you meant, lol...this show was advertised as "anything but canon," yet it's also official, so we got a clear gray area here. They say it isn't canon, yet it is an on-screen Star Trek production. But yes, I understand what you mean as to what is canon and what is not. I just don't think we should treat this show as non-canon in the same way we do the comics and stuff (in other words not make articles about characters and stuff from them). But clearly I'm not the only one to have this opinion since others have already made other pages from that first episode, like chicken finger for example. But anyway, I'm hoping we move forward with this show like it's canon but in a parallel universe; but on the other hand, as you said, I do believe we should have a different banner since they did explicitly create it with the intention for it to be non-canon. --- Noah Tall (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Official" can still mean non-canon....see: Star Trek Online.–Gvsualan (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is Star Trek Online official? It's just a video game. One that's been contradicted by canon plenty of times at that. If it isn't an episode or movie, it's not canon. So unless there's something else in that STO article I'm missing...anyway, as for the "onscreen apocrypha," whoever it was that made that comment: we certainly don't have that template yet. I think we need one if we're gonna use this, and as I already said; I think we should use this show. --- Noah Tall (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're missing something. Alternatively, I think "canonizing" these episodes, which is still otherwise supported by our current canon policy, isn't that far of a reach. Yes, alternate timelines can justify uniform ambiguities, but clearly Captain Kwirk was thrown off by the sudden appearance of these other crew members, which easily could be justified as an illusion in the vein of "WNOHGB" or even "IWWH". Who knows. We just write what we see and simply shrug it off, that's been our MO since day one. Otherwise, we need to strip the episode pages in question of all reference sections, because 75% of what is linked there is useless as apocrypha. –Gvsualan (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- 75 percent is probably correct but that still isn't everything. Chicken finger, game show and the new aliens are all completely one hundred percent new to Star Trek. I also don't know what you're acronyms mean, but yes, that we might have to come up with a new template banner for these pages as I said earlier. Maybe it could be called "Out of Continuity," I even wrote something that the banner could say in a previous post. It might not be sufficient but it's just a prototype. Anyway, forgive me as well, but I don't know what those two acronyms mean. --- Noah Tall (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- WNOHGB = "Where No One Has Gone Before" and "IWWH" = "If Wishes Were Horses". Episodes that had illusory people appear out of nowhere based on another's thought, much like seems to have happened to Captain Kwirk and the odd crewmembers that seemingly came out of nowhere. Also, MO = modus operandi, as in, we just write what we see and simply shrug it off as an inconsistency or production error (like uniform inconsistancies). –Gvsualan (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose. The difference being that in those episodes, whether the incidents really happened (however many fictional figment of characters' imagination people populate them) is not in question. So if you have a dream about talking to a purple giraffe, the giraffe itself does not exist in the real world, but the fact that you slept and had a dream about a fictional one does. Layers of reality.--LauraCC (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's definitely not canon! The characters behave partially really strange and the hopping through the timelines is (for some) funny but not very logical (I'm sure Spock would agree). Watching these clips I thought they were more like ads for the franchise and a gift to the fans because of the anniversary. Christoph77 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose. The difference being that in those episodes, whether the incidents really happened (however many fictional figment of characters' imagination people populate them) is not in question. So if you have a dream about talking to a purple giraffe, the giraffe itself does not exist in the real world, but the fact that you slept and had a dream about a fictional one does. Layers of reality.--LauraCC (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- WNOHGB = "Where No One Has Gone Before" and "IWWH" = "If Wishes Were Horses". Episodes that had illusory people appear out of nowhere based on another's thought, much like seems to have happened to Captain Kwirk and the odd crewmembers that seemingly came out of nowhere. Also, MO = modus operandi, as in, we just write what we see and simply shrug it off as an inconsistency or production error (like uniform inconsistancies). –Gvsualan (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would define canon as what's shown on-screen, be it movies, TV shows, short films etc. All alternate universes and timelines could include stuff from comics, videogames, novels etc. Clearly those aren't canon. But anyway, that's probably what you meant, lol...this show was advertised as "anything but canon," yet it's also official, so we got a clear gray area here. They say it isn't canon, yet it is an on-screen Star Trek production. But yes, I understand what you mean as to what is canon and what is not. I just don't think we should treat this show as non-canon in the same way we do the comics and stuff (in other words not make articles about characters and stuff from them). But clearly I'm not the only one to have this opinion since others have already made other pages from that first episode, like chicken finger for example. But anyway, I'm hoping we move forward with this show like it's canon but in a parallel universe; but on the other hand, as you said, I do believe we should have a different banner since they did explicitly create it with the intention for it to be non-canon. --- Noah Tall (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Idea[]
Wait a minute! I have an idea...we should make a template over the article that says: UNVERIFIED AND UNRELIABLE ACCOUNTS Then the small words in the template can say
What does everybody think about that? That seem legit enough? So maybe this article and that article could be tagged with that template. --- Noah Tall (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's similar, but far more verbose, to what Sulfur and I were talking about offline, because again, they can all be justified as "canon" with just the right twist and still fall within our policy, but then again, if TPTB clearly intend this to be non-canon stuff, then the farthest as we got in the discussion was coming up with a "non-canon universe" header or something of the type in the same vein as {{vision}}. –Gvsualan (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- Noah Tall (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, just undo their listing in the episode numbering —- please! Christoph77 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion is being archived and reframed at Forum:very Short Treks references. –Gvsualan (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Just more Short Treks[]
I feel like this should more simply fall under Star Trek: Short Treks, unless there was an indication stating otherwise, as the concept otherwise remains the same. Also, if this is because the slight changing of a title, Star Trek: Enterprise was originally just Enterprise before being retooled as the later title. –Gvsualan (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike with Enterprise, there is no continuity here in terms of production, no official source ever mentioned them being a new season of ST (they are usually described officially as just "promos") and they are obviously out of continuity gags while ST were meant to actually be part of the Star Trek continuity. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Not canon[]
Given that they've been explicitly stated not to be canon even by the official trailer, I think we should not add information from these to articles except maybe in the "apocrypha" section, even as "alternate universe" stuff (which works for the first one but is harder to justify in the second one). They are just gags that aren't supposed to be taken seriously, I don't think there's any need to add info from "Skin a Cat" to Antedian. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then all the characters should really be treated like those in comics, novels or video games: Skin a Cat characters and Holiday Party characters, a la New Frontier characters and Star Trek: Borg characters. –Gvsualan (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Canon in the sense they are official productions. Sure, they are gags, but should they be treated as any other official production? In some ways Lower Decks follows the same rules but it's also taken seriously. Maybe we should go the ways if it adds contexts to a character or event that was referenced in canon they can be correlated in those articles. But go the way of your Skin a Cat characters and Holiday Party characters when things should not be taken seriously, (i.e. Screw Head and Assface), or we keep everything within the episode article (though I think we might end up in a cleanup war in articles over the course of years). So far, IMO, no episode has gone outside the bounds that it should not be referenced within the articles (minus Assface etc). But that could very well change as it progresses. ‐Yaroze86 (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Official doesn't necessarily mean canon. These are described as promotional shorts, so they could be viewed as more akin to the in-character commercials that were made for Paramount+. In any case, I previously noted my thoughts at #Talk:Game show. -- UncertainError (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether or not they are canon, I still think the characters introduced in this companion series should be catalogued. Besides, since most of the characters introduced have not been named, the number of new character pages created would likely by minimal. - VaderFan01 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Official doesn't necessarily mean canon. These are described as promotional shorts, so they could be viewed as more akin to the in-character commercials that were made for Paramount+. In any case, I previously noted my thoughts at #Talk:Game show. -- UncertainError (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Canon in the sense they are official productions. Sure, they are gags, but should they be treated as any other official production? In some ways Lower Decks follows the same rules but it's also taken seriously. Maybe we should go the ways if it adds contexts to a character or event that was referenced in canon they can be correlated in those articles. But go the way of your Skin a Cat characters and Holiday Party characters when things should not be taken seriously, (i.e. Screw Head and Assface), or we keep everything within the episode article (though I think we might end up in a cleanup war in articles over the course of years). So far, IMO, no episode has gone outside the bounds that it should not be referenced within the articles (minus Assface etc). But that could very well change as it progresses. ‐Yaroze86 (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, official releases did call them promotional shorts a lot, and I don't really see how that's different from e.g. Pike and Mariner appearing in the Paramount Mountain ads for P+. These shorts are not likely to even be in any coherent continuity with each other. And if we are to treat everything released by Paramount that's in video format and "not a comic book, novel, audio book, audio drama, video game, etc." as canon, to be honest there are better places to start, like The Young Hunter, which is not an out of continuity gag, but was at the time discounted as something posted only on StarTrek.com and not on TV. Well, now we have streaming platforms obviously, but maybe let's not consider promos aired exclusively on YouTube canon either?
Also there's no point in having separate articles for characters for every VST episode, just like we have "New Frontier characters" and not individual articles for each New Frontiers book. We can just have a "Very Short Treks characters" page (if at all). JagoAndLitefoot (talk)
Capitalization[]
What is with the capitalization for the word "Very" in this article? While onscreen it looks like "VERy", I thought that the usual rules of capitalization applied. --Lenonn (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- With no response in almost a month and the fact that standard capitalization is to use a capital "V" here, I moved the page. Memory Alpha:Naming conventions recommends getting consensus, which I'm happy to agree should have "Very" instead of "very". —Justin (koavf)·T·C 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)