Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (pre-release discussion)Edit

Opening discussionEdit

Given that it is firmly established now that we are dealing with an alternate timeline, how are we going to handle information from Adams' movie forwards?

My opinon, given the massive changes to characters, ships, sets, etc is that they be treated as AU, and given their own articles, rather than being tacked onto the end of existing articles, or worse, overriding them.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We talked a bit about it here and on IRC. We will most likely handle info from the new movie as we do info from the mirror universe. Extensive info about a subject will be given his/her/its own page (i.e. James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) or USS Enterprise (Abramsverse). Little tidbits from the new movie (such as info on the tribble) can go on existing pages, in italics. This excludes information which is stated to have occurred in the 24th century era where Spock and Nero originate, since that time period is a part of the original timeline. --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough...though...WOW...some of the articles that are SIGNIFICANTLY Christopher Donovan 04:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that I seem to remember some of us requesting that discussion and final decision not be held until after the movie comes out, as many of us (such as Alan and myself) are keeping out of hearing spoilers, which means we can't participate in these pre-movie policy discussions. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. We have to wait, because we'll have to decide, on a case by case basis, I would say, if the new/altered information can be included on the current page or if we need to create a new page. Based and what we, those who are spoiled, have learned so far, think that at the moment, Shran's suggestion makes most sense. This will give us a head start for the procedures after the movie is officially released and all hell breaks loose. ;-) --Jörg 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have an in-universe appendage than "Abramsverse", if we can? --Defiant 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, Talk:Star Trek (film). Second of all, yes, "Abramsverse" can't be used in-universe. When the movie comes out, some appendage may suggest itself. -- 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "Nero's timeline" given that his going back in time causes its creation? Ausir 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhura says "alternate reality". – 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As said above, the issue is what to specifically refer to it as. As there are numerous alternate realities in Trek, we need something more specific.--31dot 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case though, James T. Kirk (alternate reality) or even James T. Kirk (alternate) would be a simple enough distinction for a separate article. – 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If Uhura calls it an "alternate reality" in the film, then maybe we should as well. However, in the interest of simplicity, I would prefer just "alternate", as in James T. Kirk (alternate). --From an Alternate Reality with Love
James T. Kirk (alternate) is a very bad idea. Jim Kirk is Jim Kirk and should be at Jim Kirk, unless he is an android or something other than Jim Kirk. Natasha Yar was once both Natasha Yar and Natasha Yar (alternate) and that was quickly resolved by creating a separate section for her alternate reality. We can very well implement the same with the rest of these occurances by creating separate sections or separate italicizes portions, starting with "In an alternate reality created by character X, character Y was..." --Alan 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Using that reasoning, we should merge the mirror universe articles with their "original" counterparts. Jim Kirk is Jim Kirk in the mirror universe, too. Jim Kirk ceases to be the Jim Kirk that we know if he has experienced different events than "our" Kirk, no matter what character traits they might share. I also think that merely having all references from this film in a section at the bottom of the articles(when the entry is extensive) diminishes them and suggests that they are not as valid as the original universe. Shran's idea is a good starting place, I think.--31dot 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Gah, I thought we agreed we were giving the alternate versions of the characters from the film their own separate article. If we're gonna do it like Tasha Yar, we need to all agree on that style, asap. --From AAAAAGH! with Love
Having alternate timeline info on the same page works well on Tasha Yar, so I can go for that. Pages like James T. Kirk, etc., are already pretty long, though. Should we do it anyway? --From Wherever I Am with Love
I think it should depend on the amount of information/length of the article. Kirk, definitely not.--31dot 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And I never said that we necessarily "throw it at the bottom", my last sentence clearly states to integrate it accordingly into the appropriate sections. --Alan 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems kind of awkward to break up an article with information from essentially a different character.--31dot 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well not as awkward as two articles on the same character... --Alan 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not the same character.--31dot 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
and you've seen the film and can confirm this how? --Alan 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) This is a self-proclaimed "alternate reality," so Kirk, et cetera, will all be "alternate" versions of a different Kirk, et cetera, (which is our Kirk), and I don't see any problem noting that, either through a new page or a section of their "main" page. If the problem is that, by disambiguating, we're treating Abrahams' vision as less-than the original Original characters, then we can always separate (alternate) and (original) articles with a disambiguation page in the place of character names. Alternatively, if we want to collect all the information on the main pages (Kirk, et cetera), then we can re-write them on the specific basis of being two separate continuity characters. "James Tiberius Kirk was arguably the most famous and highly-decorated starship captain in the history of the Federation Starfleet. In the original timeline, he commanded the Constitution-class starships USS Enterprise and USS Enterprise-A, serving Federation interests as an explorer, soldier, time-traveler, and diplomat. In the alternate timeline, wacky hijinks ensue."--Tim Thomason 21:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Two words: alternate reality. I don't need to have seen it. Can you confirm that it is?--31dot 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Re Tim: I think that by adding to the bottom of(or in the relevant sections of) an article the newer film is diminished. As with the mirror universe, any article of significant length derived from the film should have a seperate article. This would enhance the film by giving it equal treatment.--31dot 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
An anon claimed it was (will be) called an "alternate reality" in the film (or the *original* timeline will, we'll have to wait and see). No one can or *should* confirm anything (until the film's released), but I gather that's just what spoilers say. I agree with Alan that this issue should really wait for the release date.
I offered two suggestions that (I thought) wouldn't diminish the film. The first, as others proposed, of having two articles per character version. The second would be complete re-writing of page to give "equal weight" to both versions. For instance, noting that "James T. Kirk" is the name of a Captain who in one timeline did this, and another timeline did that.--Tim Thomason 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to wait until its released to get this sorted out(which is fine with me, if that's what people want) then we might want to think about maintaining the posting ban until the issue is sorted out, to save us from undoing or changing everything later. I think rewriting the articles is not the best solution, as this would vastly increase their length(of already long articles), aside from other reasons I've stated.--31dot 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, the posting ban is already decided, and J.J. Adams' Star Trek release is the only reason for it, not our consistent inability to reach consensus (we would've locked the site tons of times if that was an issue!). Personally, I see no problem with starting a few (alternate) articles in the short term to help consolidate information in the days after the release. This site is an in-universe compilation of a world that has two realities ("supposedly"). We shouldn't treat any differently, but we may have to at first.--Tim Thomason 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that these are, essentially, the same characters. They have the same passions, the same abilities, the same personalities. Their histories have been somewhat altered (specifically Kirk's), but they are still the same characters. They are an extension of the same universe, just split off in a different timeline, unlike the mirror universe, which is (or appears to be) a different universe all together. In other words, we should not be thinking of these characters as different characters. They are the same characters, from the same universe, just split off into a new timeline. In other words, we treat the movie as being set in the same universe, but within an alternate timeline. --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
And hence the Natasha Yar example. :) --Alan 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I agree with Alan and say keep the info on the pre-existing pages under a different section, ala Tasha Yar. --From Andoria with Love 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. These are similar characters at best. The numerous differences like age changes aside, they are products of a different environment, shaped by a different history. Their associations, behaviors, etc are all altered. Tertiary to the first two points is that JJ has clearly established this IS an alternate/altered reality. We should follow established precedent for alternate realities and give them their own articles.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the writers have also actually stated they are the same characters. "Same ship, different day," I believe their motto was. Also, most of their behaviors, etc. have been unaltered regardless of the history change. As for established precedent, what is on Tasha Yar's page is the established precedent. Writing different articles for the characters is what we do for parallel universes (namely, the mirror universe), not for altered timelines (information of which we include on the main character entries). --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict] [what Shran said above] Also, the established precedent is that the established character's alternate timeline is integrated into the said character's page. --Alan 05:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the separate page solution. I think it would be much cleaner, and I don't buy that this is any different to the mirror universe. "Parallel universe" and "alternate timeline" are used pretty interchangeably on Star Trek, so I think that's a poor basis to distinguish on.– Cleanse 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is it used interchangeably? I know we've done that on here, but in fact, a parallel universe is a universe which exists alongside and in addition to another, but it is not a branch of that universe. An alternate timeline is a branch from the original universe; it continues that universe on an altered path. The established precedent is that the established character's alternate timeline (which this is) is integrated into said character's page. Picard from "Time Squared", Yar from "Yesterday's Enterprise", Worf from "Parallels", O'Brien from "Visionary", everyone in "Shattered", there is zero reason why those characters need a separate page any more than this case. These examples are complete unlike the mirror universe. (latter three sentences from Alan, who went to bed :-P) --From Andoria with Love 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The board seems to have ate my follow up. To sum up: whoever said "same characters, different day" is off his rocker. Their histories are different. Their personalities are different ("PDA" Spock, "Mad Scientist" Scotty, et al). Their AGES in relation to each other are different. And there's no way you can convince me that the Enterprise always looked like that, and that Iowa is now a part of San Francisco.

Different history. Different characters. Different articles.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Their histories are different." - Wrong. Kirk's history is different. The others could be the same for all we know.
"Their personalities are different" - Wrong again, as explained above. The fact that their personalities are the same is an integral part of the characters and the film's story.
"Their AGES in relation to each other are different." - Wrong times three. Sorry, mate, but that doesn't cut it.
"And there's no way you can convince me that the Enterprise always looked like that, and that Iowa is now a part of San Francisco." - That's part of the altered timeline. All explained in the film, I believe. The Enterprise might be a different matter, but the characters are practically the same, IMO (and in the writers' opinions). --From Andoria with Love 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A parallel universe and an alternate timeline are very much the same thing. A universe where everything is the same up to a point where it then diverges into a separate direction of events is STILL a parallel universe, it just might have more similarities then others. There is a theory that there are countless parallel universes; One for every decision that has ever been made, such as in the TNG episode "Parallels" where they call them quantum realities. IMO it is simply that the articles here describing different realities and parallel universes would be only the ones we KNOW about, when there are limitless others that we are not aware of. However I agree with doing it in separate pages, because although we had combined pages for the alternate realities that only took up single episodes, this is a movie and can be a bit more extensive, and if a sequel continuing in this timeline is made, it could get even more so. – Aneas 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, parallel universes and alternate timelines are not the same thing, for the reasons pointed out above. A parallel universe does not have a clear diverging point. For example, it has not been stated that the mirror universe ever diverged from our own timeline, and thus has been deemed a parallel universe. The same with the parallel universes seen in "Parallels", I believe. An alternate timeline does have a clear diverging point: Vladimir Lenin being assassinated in 1916; the chaos caused by the Krenim Imperium; the USS Enterprise-C disappearing from 2344 before they can assist the Klingons; etc. etc. etc. Of course, this is all based on what I remember seeing or hearing of parallel universes and alternate timelines on Star Trek; if there is a reference which disproves this, I'm not aware of it. --From Andoria with Love 15:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I didn't really word my statement well... What I meant is that... I really can't think of a better way to explain it... The theory of quantum universes, which is an actual scientific theory ( which is what they were referring to in "Parallels" ), is that there is a limitless number of universes. One for every single outcome of every single event from all of eternity. Because of this, there are literally infinite combinations to how any given universe can or has unfolded. The way the theory is, the relation between a universe where everything is exactly the same as ours up until one point where it branches and a universe where the entirety of recorded history is different, the relation between those two universes and ours is the same. One of them simply has less differences than the other. It's like taking three dogs of different breeds, with two of them being more similar to each other than the third is, say two different types of terriers and a greyhound, and comparing them. While they are all of the same species, two of them are more similar than the other. That was what I was trying to say... But I suppose that since it doesn't help with this decision here at all that it doesn't really matter... When it comes to applying this to Star Trek here, the term "parallel universe" has been used in Star Trek so far to describe the universes which have drastic differences everywhere and "alternate timeline" has been used for the ones where there is what appears to be a branch. In the case of this movie, from my understanding, there are differences in these two timelines, there isn't one specific branching off of this timeline from the original. I do believe that using the terms that have been applied so far, that this would be considered a "parallel universe." However, because of my understanding of the above theory about quantum universes and such, I believe that the articles should be made based off of the extent of information and the extent of the differences. For example, the timeline explored in "Yesterday's Enterprise" wasn't all that extensive. The only information about that timeline and about Tasha Yar in that timeline was exactly what we saw and heard in that episode, which wasn't much. That little information about that timeline doesn't really warrant it's own article. When it comes to something like the mirror universe, where that universe has been explored in more detail and in more than one episode, it warrants it's own set of articles. I think that it all depends on the amount of information we get about this new timeline out of the movie, and we should compile all the information we get into separate articles to start, and once we see what we have we can decide if it is enough to keep it separate or integrate them into existing articles. – Aneas 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything going to be put in about the reference to admiral archer and his dog. More than likely its supposed to be a reference to archer from enterprise seeing as this dog porthos was also a beagle

Indent edit break and a new perspective Edit

Just to prevent an insane level of indents from me... :D

Anyway, I had a brainstorm earlier on my way into work. You guys have mostly been treating this issue from an in-universe perspective, as a problem to solve with regard to that perspective, and that's a perfectly valid direction to approach this thing. But, this morning I've been considering things from a realworld/practicality perspective, and have come up with a number of reasons as to why separate articles should happen:

  • Prominence: People are going to be coming here in droves, looking for information on the new movie. We are going to want that information to be as prominent as possible. Having said information as an (albeit fairly large) subsection on some of our largest and most verbose article pages does not provide that prominence. (I have a few other plans about raising the prominence of articles related to the new film, but that's for another forum page).
  • Spoilers: It will be a lot easier to patrol rogue spoilers, and for readers to ascertain where spoilers are, if the characters from the film (and the Enterprise, possibly) have separate pages. Consider James T. Kirk. If we include the new film on that page, it will have the spoiler warning at the top, right? And most likely a spoiler section warning immediately above the information. Now, a reader coming in, looking for information on the Jim Kirk from the existing timeline, will see the spoiler warning at the top, and the vast amount of article below it, and not know what sections they should avoid. In addition, people adding information will be unlikely to know that the new film data goes in a specific subsection, and will add it where they think it should go (Early Life, Command of the Enterprise, etc), further exacerbating the above issue. "Compartmentalizing" the new film information in this way will alleviate both of these problems.
  • Background information: we are going to have a vast mine of information to add as background for these characters and the Enterprise. For example, we have the casting sides for the Enterprise crew, the rumours as to who will play them, unsuccessful auditionees, how those who got the part found out, their thoughts on the character, etc. (Taking this out of Star Trek will also help slim down that page... :D) This would have a much better fit on a separate page than mingled in with the original timeline page. It's entirely possible that we will have so much information that it might drown out the background detail already present, to the detiment of the article.

These are my principle reasons. If (God forbid) the film isn't as successful as it is hoped, and the sequel never sees the light of day, down the road we may be better served by having the information back on the same page, but, I think, for these reasons, we should approach this with the intent of separate articles for information on the new film. I hope you consider them, should the Federation wish to fund these experiments to their logical conclusion. This concludes our proposal. Thank you for your attention. :D -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Those points are well taken. Given the liklihood that all future developments in the Trek Universe will be Abramsverse, they should be separate for ease of perusal.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Valid points. The spoiler issue can be handled with the section spoiler templates, I think. Perhaps we should have the info on separate pages for the time being, then integrate them later? I dunno... I'll think about all this later, right now I'm going to bed. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why this is a big deal: the Transformers Wiki has a separate article for every version of a character in each new fictional universe introduced every year. I concur with this (alternate) terminology, based on a quote from Empire magazine's review of the film, which confirms it is something Uhura says. Also, consider these new versions do have different relationships. – 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Spock? Will he have two pages? Because movie information will have to go on both. The "current" Spock goes back in time... and the "movie" Spock for the younger version? -- sulfur 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shran: But I don't think that the spoiler section warning will be particularly successful in that respect, for the reasons I mentioned above. 79.86: Differing continuities is a well-established fact in the Transformers fandom - this is something new for canon Star Trek. Sulfur: Spock is a unique case in this instance. Original Spock would have movie information on his existing page, Spock would have Spock (alternate). -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I think it might help, for at least a few days, to have separate "alternate" pages, and then (based on viewing the film) move or don't move the information. One character, mentioned above, and probably a couple others (GKSr, Capt of the USS K, J.Ko.) have "alternate" and "original" information that can be deciphered just from the film. At least 11 characters exist in the two continuities, and only 9 or 10 of them should need separate pages in this short run. This guy probably doesn't need one and maybe, maybe, not this gal either based on article size. I would say this guy too but he's a major character in the film and it will double his already kinda big article. No sequel, no need for these, but we can decide all that after the film is released and the articles are formed.--Tim Thomason 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if I accept that the characters are the same (which I don't), there are still valid reasons to have separate pages for them, as stated above. I agree with DarkHorizon's thoughts and think Tim has a good idea.--31dot 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There's also the possibility of future movies with the same characters and thus more information that would make their pages even larger. I support different pages for the characters. But agree that we should make a decision after the movie is out since none of us really know where/when this movie really takes place...— Morder 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If the characters were not the same, there would be no point in calling the movie Star Trek. The writers have already stated these characters are the same, they are just facing different circumstances. Kirk is the only one who's history is drastically altered; the writers have stated that the histories of Spock, Sulu, McCoy, etc. are pretty much unaffected. Their associations may have been altered, but they were still raised the same, they still have the same interests and personalities (Sulu still likes fencing and botany, McCoy is still an old grump who prefers not being in space, Uhurua is still interested in singing, etc.) The results of Nero's tampering have altered Kirk's history, making it more difficult for him to become the man he was destined to be in the "unaltered" timeline. That's one of the major plot points in the film. All that said, I agree with DH and Tim. Having a separate page for the main characters for a little while couldn't really hurt. If it turns out that having them on a separate page better suits MA, then I guess we can leave 'em there. --From College with Love
That doesn't jibe with the idea that there is an alternate universe. It might if it was a simple matter of time travel, but it isn't. Are you still you in another universe? But I guess that's another discussion.--31dot 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually... it is a simple matter of time travel, and the disruption of one particular person's past. Remember, this is not an alternate universe, this is an alternate timeline (yes, there is a difference). Anyway, it's already been established that the characters are the same, so I'm not sure why we're continuing to argue about it. The writers intended for them to be the same characters, with one specific character's past (Kirk) being altered to a greater extent than the others, assuming the others were altered at all (remember, we know little of the others' past, with the exception of Spock and a bit of McCoy). I would like to go into more detail, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers here. I think it would be best to watch the movie rather than continue operating under the presumptions that they are different characters, that their ages are different, etc. --From College with Love
The following comes from a interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.
Anthony: OK, now let's get really into it. From the trailer, and certainly from the four scene preview, there is no doubt that things are different. Pike and Kirk are hanging out in a bar. The ship looks different. Kirk is on the Enterprise and not headed to the Farragut. People are seeing Romulans...things are different. Now it has been revealed in the Entertainment Weekly article that Nero goes back in time and attacks the Kelvin, and JJ also talked about this during his previews. So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?
Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this movie.
Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents...and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock's back story would not be affected by that change?
Bob: Right.
Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.
For the full interview, go here. --From College with Love
They state that what will happen in this movie might have actually happened in the main timeline, not that it did. If it was only an alternate timeline it would erase the timeline that we know, just like in "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Year of Hell", etcetera, etcetera, which they have said that they're not doing. Again, is a version of you in an alternate timeline still you? Especially if someone alters who you are?
Anyway, this portion of discussion is really immaterial to the issue of seperate pages.--31dot 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The only time they use the word "might" is when they're referring to the unknown stuff from the pre-existing timeline. Also, there's no proof that an alternate timeline erases the other timeline (in fact, there is evidence to the contrary throughout the entire Star Trek universe, including Sela and Daniels). The writers have also specifically stated that the creation of this alternate timeline does not erase the previous timeline, as per the current scientific theory of quantum mechanics which states that timelines continue to exist on their original path even after a new timeline has branched out from it. Also, it's not really immaterial. We're debating whether the characters are the same and thus the info should be on the pre-existing character pages, or whether they are different and should be given separate articles. At least I though that's what we were going for. Anyways, as I said before, I agree with Tim and DH... but ultimately I think the info should be on the pre-existing articles of the characters, since they are technically the same characters, as proven above. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just reading this page with half an eye, to avoid spoilers, but this talk about "characters" got my attention. Keep in mind that we're not writing articles about characters of some entertainment franchise (in which case all Kirks are surely the same), but about living people in some universe we pretend is real. If there are two or more "versions" of one person, then we need to make sure that an event that happened to just one of the versions doesn't end up in the backstory of the other one. This could of course be done in one article, but definitely must be done in separate sections, then. -- Cid Highwind 18:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The least confusing way to do that, with the characters at least, is to have separate pages. :) I think there is confusion between "character" and "person". Kirk A and Kirk B might be the same character, but different people. Anyway, I won't restate them, but DH gave other good reason why there should be separate pages, and I support them.--31dot 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yah, I think having them separate is the best way to go for now, and we'll see how things go from there. The events in the movie may make things clearer as to what to do, but for now, maybe it's best we separate info for the main characters in different articles. If we do that, though, we need a good, in-universe qualifier, and right now it looks like it will either be (alternate) or (alternate reality). If we go that route, I prefer the former. --From Andoria with Love 06:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, I suppose I should have continued reading before making posts and comments and such in the other section, that's a bad habit of mine. Yes, I agree, separate articles till we can see what we have and how the movie handles it, then we can decide what to do with them. – Aneas 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit breakEdit

Actually I figured this website would cease to exist after May 8,2009 since the new movie makes the last forty or so years of history irrelevant. What's the point of maintaining a website like this when the producers at Paramount just want to turn Star Trek into another mindless action flick? And the whole "recasting the main characters with younger actors" premise of this movie is actually a rip-off of a joke made in Stargate SG1 episode "200". If the producers who plagiarized Stargate had paid attention, then they would have heard these words: "Never underestimate your audience, they are usually sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment." Also, they would have heard Dr. Jackson say: "That's Star Trek and it's ridiculous". The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Spoken like a true fanatic who has yet to see the movie and who has done little research on the movie. The film is hardly a "mindless action flick" (hell, I haven't seen it yet, and even I know that much). As for making MA irrelevant, the filmmakers have already stated the events of the movie create a new timeline, but that it does not override the old timeline (look up the current, real-life scientific theory of quantum mechanics). Also, don't look now, but I guarantee you your DVD collection of previous Trek movies and TV shows will still exist after this movie is made. Please do some research before making comments about anything, thanks. --From Andoria with Love 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this movie should be on a cannon Star Trek wiki. There are several great novels that are written much better than this movie that can't be added here because they are not considerred cannon. Imzadi, Vendetta, Devil's Heart, Valiant, Kaless just to name a few. Just because some nitwit with a half baked idea that ends up on the big screen should not make it instantly accepted as cannon. I know that's the policy here but maybe we should look into changing it. After all Star Trek V was removed from cannon by Gene Roddenberry.
And I'm here looking for good hearted debate, not personal attacks. Civilized people should be able to agree or disagree respectfully.
To the user known as "From Andoria with Love" aka Chuckie-
So, I'm a fanatic because I demand that the producers of Star Trek be accountable for the quality of the movies they produce. And how many times have you thrown the "No Personal Attacks" policy in people's faces? Practice what you preach. Just because you have your nose stuck up Adams' backside doesn't mean that the rest of us have to follow.
Perhaps you should do a little research of your own. Have you ever heard of a logic fallacy? Let me give you an example of one. AD HOMINEM: Attacking the person who presents an issue rather than dealing logically with the issue itself. Your actions have actually proven my point that this movie is crap. So your only choice left is to attack me. And for you information, I did research this movie before I made my comments. I know everything there is to know about this movie, every plot point, EVERYTHING! I'm very disappointed with the movie. And apparently I'm not the only one or the movie would have been released last year instead of setting on the shelf for six months while the marketing department tried to do damage control. Time is money and business people don't let a 150 million dollar product set around gathering dust unless they feel like the movie will flop. Right now Paramount is desperately trying to recoup their investment. Their actions alone prove that this movie is a stinker.
Furthermore, Chuckie, you know nothing about me, but you stoop so low as to insult my intelligence. For your information I have a Master's degree in Physics as well as a MBA. I am well versed in quantum physics and I found your attempt to lecture me about scientific theory laughable. You need to get your facts straight. Have you ever taken a graduate level science class? Or do you just stick to the "underwater basket weaving" courses like "Theater"? The way you behave, I doubt you've ever seen the inside of a University.
Your actions are deplorable. You don't own this wiki and you don't have the right to pounce on people simply because you disagree with their opinion. Now if you want to act like a man and discuss this movie, fine. I can be civil to those who disagree with me. Can you?
Signed: Right Eminent Grand Commander Thor 5/5/09
I don't see any personal attacks levied against you by Shran or anyone else. Yet you seem to have no problem doing so.--31dot 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Business people will let a 150 million dollar product sit to build up anticipation for it, which has been done. Paramount and Abrams repeatedly said that they felt the movie was excellent. Virtually all of the reviews are positive. As suggested to you, you might want to check your facts a little better.--31dot 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the decision to hold Star Trek off until summer was made because Paramount thought that the film would make more money as a summer blockbuster than as a Christmas movie — the exact opposite of what Thor suggests.
Of course, that's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the film should be considered as part of the Star Trek canon, and how aspects of the film should be treated on MA. Whether something is canon or not has nothing to do with its quality, or whether it's likely to make money. (Nemesis lost a lot of money, but I don't recall seeing anyone say that it shouldn't be treated as canon.) If you believe in "canon" as a concept, you have to accept that the copyright holder has the right to determine what constitutes "canon". In the case of Star Trek, that's Paramount. If they say that it's canon, it is.
Now, an individual viewer has the right to say, "I'm not going to count this in my personal view of the Star Trek saga." But that isn't what canon is. Canon, by definition, is established by an authority. Etymologically, a canon is a rule — the term comes from the canons of the Catholic Church and the canonical books of the Bible. If you want to set up your own list of what does and does not "count" in Star Trek, feel free to do so — but don't call your list "canon", because it isn't. "Personal canon" is an oxymoron. —Josiah Rowe 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
LMAO!!! I'm about 99.9% sure "Thor" hasn't even seen the movie yet. I'm also 100% sure he's never studied anything related to quantum physics. He reminds me of a guy on IMDb who was hating on the movie, calling it trash for reasons that weren't true, claiming he saw the movie, yet he could not prove it. Like that user, "Thor" made statements above that have been proven false (repeatedly) elsewhere. Regardless, this discussion isn't to debate whether the movie is canon (it is, no question) or should be accepted as canon on MA (it will be, no question), it's to decide how we are going to handle the information in the movie. Any discussion on whether or not we accept it as canon is moot. Oh, and Thor: before accusing people of making personal attacks against you, you may want to make sure that actually happened. Did I attack you? No. I called you a fanatic, yes; by this I meant you were a fan of the old ways and were afraid of anything new. Did I insult your intelligence? No. I said you did not do proper research before commenting. This is true, as you have proven in all of your comments thus far. Speaking of personal attacks...
"Just because some nitwit with a half baked idea that ends up on the big screen should not make it instantly accepted as cannon."
"Just because you have your nose stuck up Adams' backside doesn't mean that the rest of us have to follow."
" you just stick to the "underwater basket weaving" courses like "Theater"? The way you behave, I doubt you've ever seen the inside of a University."
That's at least three personal attacks in that last comment you left (yes, personal attacks against filmmakers count ... personal attacks against anyone count). I'm also assuming referring to me as "Chuckie" was a failed attempt to demean and insult me. We do not tolerate this here; one more such attack and we will block you. Technically, you should be blocked already, but I'm actually in a good mood right now (thanks in part to your message, that had me rolling). If one of the other admins decided to block you, however, it would be well within their rights. If you want to act like a man and discuss the topic of this forum, fine. But I refuse to resort to childish whining and name-calling. (btw, I'm assuming for now you're a legit visitor, but if you're from some rival movie studio trying to spread some bad press about Star Trek or if you're just here to get a rise out of people, you are barking waaay up the wrong tree. Truth be told, we just don't care what people think.) --From Andoria with Love 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Onion on objections to the new film by existing fans Edit

This is a bit off-topic, but I think that this is a good all-purpose response to anyone who objects to the new Star Trek film on fannish grounds, like Thor above. —Josiah Rowe 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film) - Removing spoiler restrictions / Site lockdownEdit

Okay, so, there are only two weeks left before Star Trek opens, so we need to come to some kind of agreement on when to lift the spoiler restrictions. That is to say, when will it be okay to start adding information from the movie? The obvious choice would probably be midnight on May 8th, although another possibility would be 7pm on May 7th, which is when the movie first begins playing. But then I realized that most people (myself included) will probably be seeing it Friday night. As such, I propose that we start permitting info from the movie beginning midnight on May 9th. This will give us at least a day to see the movie. Alternatively, we could lift the restrictions after the weekend is over, but that may cause some issues. Anyway, let me know what you guys think. --From Andoria with Love 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm for holding off as long as logistically possible. Most of the pages I anon-locked due to spoilers (Spock, Kirk, Pike) are timed until 8 May, 0:00 UTC... but unless you live in the US in a major metropolitan market, you wont be able to see it for a good 12+ hours after that time expires. --Alan 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I vote for midnight on the 9th. I think it's good to give people that first day to see it(even though I probably won't be seeing it then) Whatever is decided, how will it be enforced? Just revert stuff until the deadline?--31dot 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We may want to consider just doing midnight May 8th. I for one plan not to visit Memory Alpha from the premier hour until I see the movie, because rules or not, it will become much more difficult to keep out spoilers the second the first showing lets out. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, the wiki will still have to be patrolled during that time, as we're bound to get a major influx of vandalism, if nothing else (and I strongly suspect page blanking and overwriting will be an issue for a while) - unless we lock the database entirely over May 7th and 8th, which is something I am seriously proposing we do. The earliest I'm likely to be able to monitor things without having to worry about being spoiled is about 15:00 UTC on the 8th (since I'll be going to the very first showing they have). I know Cid and Jorg will get to see the film on the 6th, but they certainly won't be able to keep an eye on this place for two whole days on their own. Note that locking the database will also give us a little time to work out how the new information will fit in... -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think midnight on May 8th works for me. I will see the movie on May 6th, too. – Tom 07:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of further delay? Once the film is released worldwide, the first contributors to see it on the very first showing will come here, begin the film's article and start adding relevant material to existing articles. Others who see it later will continue the work, correcting the first ones' mistakes and omissions, and that is how it will go. What is the point of further delay after the worldwide release on May 8th "to give as much people as possible to see it first"?– Crimsondawn hears you... 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Because a lot of the people who edit this site would be forced to view spoilers with relation to newly created articles as well as checking to see if changes made to already existing articles isn't vandalism. — Morder 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That and, fairness. Let's be frank, we all live where we live for a certain reason, and the decisions to release the film at various times at various locations was also made for a certain reason. For those reasons alone, we cannot all view the film simultaneously, nor would it really be fair for those who are 'forced' to wait until a later date to view it to be spoiled, or miss out an opportunity to get to equally contribute the new information. Since nearly 50% of MA's traffic is from the US [1], it would seem to make the most sense to wait until it is open in the US. --Alan 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I thought is was being released to the whole world at the same time. – Crimsondawn hears you... 17:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From Star Trek: It is slated for release in both conventional and IMAX theaters on 8 May 2009, following a limited number of advanced screenings starting at 7pm the night before. (And apparently in Germany two nights before...) --Alan 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In Germany one night before; Thursday is the traditional opening night for new movies. Cid and I are just watching special previews on Wednesday. --Jörg 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Me too, Jörg. ;)– Tom 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, those pesky Germans, get to see it in advance of most Americans ;-) --Jörg 07:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding enforcement, prevention is already being enforced. Articles for new characters in the movie (i.e. the main villain, etc.) cannot be created as they are on the deleted pages list, which is set on cascading protection. To protect the not so new characters (Kirk, Spock, etc.), we could protect those pages until whenever we decide to lift the restrictions. The movie page (Star Trek) can also be protected. For the record, I am still in support of not lifting the protections until midnight of May 9th, to allow a full day for US residents to see the movie. Lifting it on midnight of May 8th would not be fair to us in the States because most of us would not have seen it yet. (Virginia still does not have any midnight showings, though we do have limited screenings at 7pm and 10pm on May 7th, neither of which I will be able to make). If we decide to lift protection on May 8th, I can tell you now I will not be on MA to help with the influx of info that would come our way. I do know a lot of things about the movie, but I don't know everything that will happen in the movie, and I am going to keep it that way until I see it. So, to prevent being spoiled, I will be avoiding MA on May 8th should we allow info from the movie on that day. Just giving you a heads up. --From Andoria with Love 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that protecting the pages Shran mentioned and the prevention of the creation of new pages pertaining to the movie until midnight of May 8th is a good idea. I've seen rge BSG wiki fo the same, whenever a new episode was released. It gives people a larger number of people time to actually have seen it, so edits to the relevant pages can be done in a more controled way. I picture small edit wars going on, because unregistered users or new users want to be the first to add sth. to the pages but have no clue how to really do it. The ratio of admins (incl. veteran users) to new/unregistered users is higher, if we wait until the date Shran stated, so we won't see chaotic back-and-forth editing on the main movie-related pages (or at least less). The more time passes, the more people (hopefully) will have seen the movie more than once, which helps refine the articles. It's been quite some time since we were able to add new material from new episodes/movies after initial broadcast. I guess we'll also have some problems concerning spelling issues (Andorian shingles is no problem, but what about some of the more exotic new names that will pop up in the movie). So, I guess, protecting the pages for a while longer will give us the time to cope with some of the problems that will arise once the movie is officially released, I'm all for it! --Jörg 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem I see is enforceability of anything we decide in this regard. If we set our deadline to some arbitrary date after the film has been released, we will inevitably end up with a period where people have info, but aren't allowed to add it. If we protect individual pages, this info will probably be posted to other articles, or eventually talk pages. Especially, I could imagine many "reference desk" pages popping up with questions containing major spoilers. This is not a workable solution IMO. Instead, I see only two ways out:
  1. Lift all protections and spoiler restrictions on the date of US release, midnight. Everyone who hasn't seen the film yet, and doesn't want to be spoiled, will need to stay away from MA. Everyone else may add information. There is nothing inherently "unfair" about this. Also, keep in mind that articles have a history. Invalid additions may still be weeded out several days later.
  2. Have Wikia set MA/en to read-only for a pre-defined period, starting on the date of US release, midnight, and lasting no longer than perhaps 2-3 days. Have a big message on every page, explaining why this is necessary, and inviting people to come back later to add information.
--Cid Highwind 11:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cid -- Truth be told... I prefer the latter. :) But I doesn't need to be two or three days. We just need to give people one day to see the movie. I would say from 9pm EST on May 7th (when the first showing will end) to midnight of May 9th. That's 27 hours. Can we live without editing on MA for that long? What we could do is, when an admin is active on MA during that time period, they could lift the read-only mode, but when they leave, they put it back to read-only mode. That might cause a bit of chaos, though. I dunno. Any more suggestions? --From Andoria with Love 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we must prevent the Germans from advancing first! But seriously... --Alan 05:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! So are you for or against locking the site during that time? :-D --From Andoria with Love 05:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only that regarding "starting on the date of US release" and "since nearly 50% [49.8%] of MA's traffic is from the U.S." - it is also true that next in line are the 15.6% of MA visitors from Germany and 7.6% from United Kingdom, their opening dates should be factored in as well... or in other words, more policing would potentially be required up until the US opening date-based lock down... --Alan 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh, actually, that German number might be more MA/de based, than MA/en, so I guess if they want to open it up sooner than us, that's up to them. If Wikia locks MA (I assume it would be MA/all) then we shouldn't really be the ones to dictate when they want to start adding new stuff to their version, seeing as they aren't in on this discussion. Otherwise we could just lock the site for ourselves... which can only be done in 24hr intervals, and is probably the best option, pending a decision on when and for how long. --Alan 05:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A 24-hour lock of the English MA sounds fine with me. Like I said, it can be lifted now and again when there are admins policing the site, or it can just stay locked the entire time. Either/or. --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "MA/all" concern: these locks can be done per language version, so that we only need to concern ourselves with getting agreement for MA/en. You are right, we may want to define an earlier lock date, though, to avoid spoilers from international showings. For what it's worth, the earliest german ones I know of are May 6, ~8pm CEST. Whatever timeframe we decide upon, it should be decided well in advance, and be published as a site notice at least 24 hours before it starts.
Regarding the suggestion to temporary lift the lock while an admin is active, I don't like it. If we lock the site ourselves (which I forgot we can do), we should play fair and not allow anyone to edit. If we use site protection, we can not exclude admin editing anyway, so we'll need to agree to not misuse that. No editing of content pages during that time, whatsoever - and no on-site preparation of articles in user namespace, just to be the one to get the credit after site unlocking. This is not a race. If we're going to do this, I'm going to make sure to revert any of those by admins. -- Cid Highwind 07:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To make that more clear - admins should still be allowed to: (1) revert spoiler information that got through before site lock, (2) perform other admin tasks such as pending page deletions, and perhaps (3) perform editorial edits to MA:, Help:, Forum: and other "project namespaces" (just in case someone wants to use that free time for a little housekeeping). -- Cid Highwind 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is beginning to look like a consensus is emerging. Based on what I can tell, the earliest that spoilers are likely to become widely available will be ~2000 UTC on May 6th (German advance screenings). A lockdown from then until midnight UTC on May 9th would give a total of 52 hours (so, 2 renewals of the lock will be needed). Note: UK screenings will begin on May 7th at ~1000 UTC (slightly annoying, as I booked the day off on May 8th... :D). -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A 52-hour lock? Wow... well, I guess if that's what we have to do, it has to be done. I'm game for locking the site from 20:00 UTC on May 6th through 4:00 UTC on May 9th (that's midnight on the US east coast). People in the central and western part of the US who are seeing the movie that day will likely be watching the movie at that time or heading to the theater, and thus, not on a computer. Would this time be okay with everyone else? --From Andoria with Love 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. --Alan 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good.--31dot 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --Jörg 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Peachy. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, it's settled. We'll lock the site at 20:00 on May 6th. We will need to lock it again at 20:00 on May 7th, and 20:00 on May 8th, the last for a period of six hours. The lock should not be lifted except for the reasons Cid explained above. One last thing... how do we lock the site again? :-P --From College with Love

Special:Protectsite (only available to Administrators). A site notice should be put up ASAP.--Tim Thomason 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking we could put up a site notice on Sunday night, May 3rd. This will give everyone three days to prepare. --From Andoria with Love 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to draft a general ST09 announcement/celebration page to be linked on the main page (like the style change one I did last year), which would incorporate the locking details. I plan to have it ready in draft form by Friday for feedback purposes. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! Are you going to write a sitenotice draft (for all pages), too? -- Cid Highwind 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, the announcement is written - User:DarkHorizon/XI/announcement. Comments, suggestions? Site notices are at the bottom of the page. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Regarding the mentioned "specific framework as to where information will go", I'd like to suggest the following amendment to the "embargo", based on a discussion with Bp yesterday:
  1. Create one Ten Forward page with a title making clear that it potentially contains full spoilers.
  2. In the announcement, invite contributors to an IRC chat room (should be different from #memory-alpha), where possible policy changes for MA can be discussed.
  3. Allow admins to post discussion summaries on that TF page during the lock, if they consider it necessary or a non-admin participant of the discussion requests it.
Note that this isn't meant to circumvent discussion and decision on MA after the lock has been lifted - but simply to give us a little head-start, so that we don't need to start discussing while edits are already being made. -- Cid Highwind 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added some information (sketchy, since we haven't decided on actual names for things yet) along those lines. If everything is OK, I'll have the announcement go live tomorrow. -- Michael Warren | Talk 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, there have been no objections and no further comments, so I will take this live now. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the first I have actually seen of this topic, or else, I'd have commented earlier then this. I am also not going to argue the point, it's already being done. Firstly, I can understand that you want to protect against potential spoiling due to the spoiler policy that is in place, however I feel that locking down the entire website because there's different timezones in effect, is a bit much. Certainly, there could be other options in place instead of having done that, but it's done, and I just felt that my comment should have been entered irregardless. --Terran Officer 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone should note this post from a Wikia staff member: looks like the "lock-down" idea won't fly. —Josiah Rowe 05:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock-down? Edit

Hi. I've just seen your intention to lock the site. That's not what ProtectSite was given to you for. It's specifically to be used as an emergency measure against serious vandalism. That's why it has a maximum of 24 hours. The idea is not to keep replacing it, or to use it in a non-emergency.

I do understand your concern about spoilers ruining your enjoyment of the new film... but frankly, I'm more worried about users having their enjoyment of the wiki taken away because of this lock.

So how about this: Instead of using ProtectSite, Wikia will set the wiki to only allow logged in users for the duration. I'd also suggest giving some extra users rollback rights (those that don't mind spoilers) - which will allow admins who want to stay away and avoid the risk of spoilers to do so. The Wikia Community team can check in to see if we can help too, and give some extra support over this time. That will allow the general editor to continue to participate on the wiki. After all, that's what wikis are supposed to be about! -- sannse@fandom (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is misinterpreting our intentions for the lock so badly, I don't even know where to start. So, in no specific order:
  • This has been decided, not against the will of the existing community, but after allowing its participation in the discussion.
  • It is not done solely to protect the few admins from seeing a spoiler here or there, but, among other reasons:
    • because we've "been there, done that". During the first days after the release, expect much crap like this: [2]. Not by logged-in users, not by the highly valued community, but by anonymous people from around the globe who haven't edited MA before, will never edit MA after, and are thus not people we need to cater to.
    • because, being a part of it, we know a little thing or two about Trek fandom. Especially during the first days after release, people will want to refresh their memories about what they've seen perhaps 40 years ago, without being in constant danger of being spoiled for a movie they haven't seen yet. People off-site seem to agree with our decision: [3]
    • because, for reasons I won't spell out on this page (as they constitute a spoiler themselves), we (the "active community") can use some days "off" to discuss how to best add new information to existing articles, without needing to patrol and redact tons of edits at the same time.
    • last but not least, because just handing out rollback rights simply isn't a solution. First, it would be a little difficult to find people that are willing to be spoiled, have the time, can be trusted with power AND know their Trek lore good enough to even be able to identify each and every spoiler (would you?). Second, would it really be a good solution to allow changes to be made only to have them rolled back en masse? I don't think so...
So, to summarize while being frank, too: I'm incredibly less concerned about the anonymous drive-by editor that is not allowed to post for some time, than I am about some real community member (who understands the need for a lock) being spoiled otherwise.
I think we'll just go forward as planned, lock this site beginning in 11 hours, and hope this is not met by Wikia waving the big stick. If you want to help us out, maybe we could talk about proper and complete site protection for the whole time, instead of doing it ourselves in 24-hour intervals. -- Cid Highwind 09:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If there's a better way to accomplish this (temporary lock-down) rather than using ProtectSite, I think we're all open to suggestion. I'd hate to lose our access to the ProtectSite tool because of perceived misuse. Sannse had it turned on a while back in response to a request from me to help stop some ongoing vandalism, and it was left activated after that. The few (relatively short) times it's been used since then have proved it to be a valuable tool in combating certain forms of vandalism. -- Renegade54 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to wave a big stick, but we are concerned about this lock-down. Having wikis remain open to all is one of the things we hope all wikis will strive for, and we had hoped to offer a positive compromise providing some help looking after the wiki, while allowing newbies to fall in love with editing.

I would argue that the difficulty in managing the wiki during a big release is worth it to get the benefits of new interest and growth of the community. While many of those newbies will just make a few edits and wander off, some of them will be grabbed by the whole wiki editing thing and may be your admins of the future. Attract those visitors and you won't have trouble in finding people able and willing to help out by taking on rollback rights for the next movie.

However, we don't wish to have a counterproductive debate about how to handle the issue at this late date. You have laid out some good reasoning for your choices, and while we might disagree on the costs and benefits of a lockdown, we all have the best interests of the wiki at heart. So in this instance we agree to set the wiki as "admin-only edits" during the hours requested. If you have other ideas or need any help during the next few days, let us know. -- sannse@fandom (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The lock is on --sannse@fandom (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Cid Highwind 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing spoiler restrictions Edit

Now that the movie has been released and story details are being spoiled, we still have to find a schedule for removing some of our spoiler precautions. From the top of my head, I suggest the following:

  1. spoiler information itself, including article and image file titles - already allowed.
  2. IRC channel #memory-alpha-spoilers - close during the next days, or by the weekend: May 17?
  3. spoiler warnings (list)- remove from production articles by end of the week (May 17); remove from in-universe articles as soon as a "new universe"-tag has been agreed upon to replace it with. This hopefully shouldn't take much longer than next week, so by May 24? Anyone who still hasn't seen the movie then should be able to deal with that tag as a sort-of spoiler warning.

Suggestions, ideas? -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. IRC on May 17. Production articles same day. In-Universe, aim for May 24, leeway to May 31. There's still a lot of discussion there it seems. :) -- sulfur 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: IRC channel closed - or rather, set to moderation. Further opinion on the rest? -- Cid Highwind 10:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film) - Reminder: Image use policy / CopyrightsEdit

Following the re-opening of MA, many of you will surely want to not only write articles about characters and objects newly introduced by Star Trek, but will also add images related to that. This is great, but please keep in mind the following:

  1. We don't want images from "dubious sources" to be used. Currently, the only legally available images (using the fair use rationale where possible) are those from (a) the trailers and (b) publicity stills. Until Star Trek has been released on DVD, don't upload images that can't be found in either of these resources.
  2. However, we prefer images from the actual production to images from either of those resources - which means that, if such image is uploaded, it will eventually be replaced as a "better" one becomes available. To help with this future process, please make sure that the origin of any image you upload is correctly stated on the image description page - don't just attribute it to Star Trek, but additionally state that it is from one of the trailers! An image category for this type of images will eventually be created.
  3. At the same time, many new articles will have to be created without images for the moment, as much has not been shown in the trailers. If this is the case, it might be a good idea to also tag these articles with a maintenance category, to allow quick identification of articles in need of images once screenshots become available. This category will most probably be discussed after re-opening.

Thanks! -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In case "dubious sources" is not understood, here it is in plain language. ABSOLUTELY NO images from bootlegged copies of the film are allowed. NONE. Without exception. Memory Alpha at all times respects copyright. Such images will be immediately deleted when found. Users who persist in uploading them will be blocked.

Crimsondawn hears you... 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

List of temporary images Edit

Below is a list of images that were uploaded for use in Star Trek (film) articles. I am not sure as to their source and thus was asked to list them here. I have asked the uploader to cite them if he can. – Crimsondawn hears you... 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Nero, 2258.jpg
  • File:Nero.jpg
  • File:James T. Kirk (Alternate), 2258.jpg

The images that were listed above are official screencaps from Trek Core. I believe this to be an acceptable source, unless mistaken. – Crimsondawn hears you... 13:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (post-release discussion) Edit

On this page, we will discuss how and where to add information from the upcoming Star Trek after its release. During the site lockdown, preliminary discussion results from a specific, open IRC channel may be added here. After the lockdown, full discussion will continue here. See:

-- Cid Highwind 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC discussion Edit

May 7 Edit

Participants: User:Jörg, User:Cid Highwind, later User:Tim Thomason, User:Bp, User:Shran, BCSWowbagger, User:ZenMondo

  • Jörg states that items just being "namedropped" could just be added to existing articles, while separate articles should be created for clearly incompatible uses (citing Delta Vega as an example). Cid thinks that merging info from different timelines into one article may be more complicated than having two separate articles.
  • Jörg thinks we'll need clear identifiers for the different timelines (example identifiers below). Cid agrees, and suggests to additionally identify the timeline an article belongs to by some sort of page icon or graphic. Jörg likes the idea.
  • Identifiers: "(alternate)" is considered too generic. Brainstormed other terms include "Narada", "Nero", "Red Matter", "Kelvin", "2233 split". Jörgs suggestion of "Kelvin Destruction timeline", abbreviated for article qualifiers as "(KD)" is the best idea we can come up for the moment.
    • Bp joining in later suggested using "(alternate)" or "(Abramsverse)"
    • BCSWowbagger later "voted" for separating pages responsibly. He cited Natasha Yar (from TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise") as a special case, due to her being a "tiny character," but Shran pointed out that the same was true for Hikaru Sulu and Nyota Uhura.
  • Joining later, Tim suggests to qualify Delta Vega articles by (Vulcan system) and (galactic barrier). However, this tells nothing about the timeline the planets are from. Each one may not exist in the "other" one.
  • Cid discussed adding a special qualifier bar at the top of the screen (here). This still needs to be updated for all skins.
  • Shran later joined in and expressed his wish to hug the writers of Star Trek.
  • There was some discussion regarding the age of Pavel Chekov (17 in 2258-set Star Trek; 22 in 2267-set "Who Mourns for Adonais?"). Shran and Tim agreed that the events of the alternate timeline may have caused a different conception time, and since he existed entirely in the alternate timeline, it had no effect on the original universe.
  • Tim and BCSWowbagger disagreed on whether the reference to "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" should be Porthos, due to the time of the incident.
  • Shran and Tim agreed that images known or apparently taken from bootlegged sources shouldn't be used on the site, whereas ZenMondo believed that any screencaps from the film should be accepted.

Additional commentsEdit

I'm on my way to a theater right now, so I'm not taking the time to log in to IRC -- one thought though, there was, in "Where No Man...", a sign in the set decoration that identified the TOS station as being on planet "Delta-Vega". Perhaps we should use that hyphenated name for the TOS planet? -- Captain MKB 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My disambiguant vote goes to "Red matter reality" or "Nero's timeline", but neither lends itself to a catchy abbreviation. -- Captain MKB 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a very difficult decision. Characters like Uhura (soon to by at "Nyota Uhura") and Hikaru Sulu would definitely benefit from additional info to expand their articles, but pages that are already long, like James T. Kirk and Spock, would just be made even longer. I don't supposed we can have movie info for long page characters on separate pages, and put movie info for the shorter pages in those pages, could we? (Not sure if that made sense, but there you go.) As for a qualifier, how about "Kelvin Timeline" (or KT) or just "Timeline B"? --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the timeline should rather be "Kelvin timeline" than "red matter timeline" or "Nero timeline", as the destruction of said ship changed everything. Nero and red matter will be forgotten in the next movie, the fact that Kirk's Dad died aboard the ship, crewmembers on that ship first saw Romulans (no more "Balance of terror") and Pike writing his thesis about George Kirk and the Kelvin will still be relevant in the netx movie(s). Hell, even the fact that there are salt shakers in the shape of the USS Kelvin show, that it's pretty significant. --Jörg 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The destruction of the Kelvin may have been the first change but it is not the biggest change. The destruction of Vulcan will be remembered more then the destruction of the Kelvin, and will change the timeline more significantly.

May 8 Edit

Participants: User:Cid Highwind, User:ZenMondo, Bacon, Samy_M, User:Tim Thomason, User:Majorthomme, willyum

Three points have been brought up by Cid, in reply to comments on this page:

  1. "Nyota Uhura" - we technically don't know that, as the new Uhura was born in the separate timeline already - we should be very cautious when adding "new timeline" stuff to "old timeline" articles!
  2. "Nero timeline" (or any N*** timeline) would have the nice side effect of being abbreviated as "NT". Which, in turn, could have a secondary meaning of "new timeline" - We can add article title qualifiers like "(NT)" to new article, which is pretty short. On the page, we can then qualify this (using a template) as "Nero timeline".
  3. i updated the "qualifier bar" somewhat. both graphically, and on the script side to work with monobook - the link has already been posted above. If this meets consensus, feel free to grab everything necessary from MA/eo and add it here. You can see in the RC there which pages I changed. If we use this, we could also adopt the design for other "qualifiers", such as realworld, or mirror!

Not much discussion about that follows. However, ZenMondo likes the "Nero/new timeline" moniker, while Bacon suggests "vector timeline".

Random thoughts brought up later (paraphrased, not actual cites):

  • Cid: We should make sure to ridicule N*kia as much as possible, on our now-necessary page about them. We shouldn't be a part of that stupid product placement scheme.
  • ZenMondo: A redirect from "Spock Prime" to Spock is in order.
  • ZenMondo: Since Winona was in labor before the timeline split occured, shouldn't Kirk's birthplace be changed from Iowa to USS Kelvin?
    • Cid: Would be speculation to do that, an early birth might have been triggered by stress during the attack, and Kirk otherwise born on Earth.
      • ZenMondo: However, check if birthplace:Iowa was really stated as fact, and remove otherwise.

--Cid Highwind 11:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While I like the "NT" distinction, it may not be so appropriate for subsequent movies/other productions set in the alternate timeline as, while the timeline would be featured, Nero will probably not return as a central villian! --Defiant 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I like "Nero's timeline" better than "Nero timeline" (note possessive) for that reason. Even though Nero has passed on and won't return as central villain, he was the driving force in disrupting history, thus he gets the "blame". Also, this has the aforementioned "NT" meaning "new timeline" or "new Trek".
As to Nyota, I think it would be a little snobbish to think this might not be her canon first name. Nyota has been her non-canon first name in novels for decades, and it was obviously the film's way of acknowledging the long history of licensed literature in the original timeline. Just as Star Trek VI finally acknowledged Sulu's first name of "Hikaru" after it was used in novels for years and TAS finally acknowledged "Tiberius" as Kirk's middle name after it originated in a noncanon source. -- Captain MKB 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Full agreement here, see my post above. --Jörg 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, here's no reason why Uhura of the prime timeline cannot be named Nyota Uhura. Remember, these are the same characters as in the prime universe, they have just had different experiences. None of the other characters' names have changed at all (James Tiberius Kirk, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Andreivich Chekov, Montgomery Scott), so there's no reason to believe Uhura is any different. Besides, Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols have already stated her first name is Nyota, it just hasn't been revealed on-screen until now. As for Kirk's birthplace being changed, there is no need; for all we know, the Kelvin was on its way back to Earth when its sensors detected the black hole. Also, as Cid said, hightened stress might have caused an early birth. As for using "Nero's timeline" or "NT" as the qualifier... I'm okay with that, though I prefer using "NT" to mean "new timeline" rather than "Nero's timeline" (though that can be on of the alternate meanings, as can "new Trek"). I still think we can have some of the information on pre-existing pages, though. Uhura, for certain, needs an expansion. --From Andoria with Love 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with using Nyota on both articles, although we should definitely express the source and possible ambiguity on Uhura Prime's page. As for Kirk's birth, we should leave his Prime birthplace ambiguous, and simply state his mother was pregnant with him on the Kelvin. Let the readers wonder if he was born there or in Iowa (where he was "from" and probably grew up). I think right now we can safely use the "(NT)" qualifier after the lockdown and until or unless we come up with another solution.--Tim Thomason 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Bp thinks the qualifier should be "red matter timeline" or "RMT" since it is the red matter which creates the singularity which sends Nero back in time in the first place. I agree with this reasoning. He also believes that "Nero's timeline" is not appropriate since A.) Nero existed in the previous timeline, B.) the timeline doesn't belong to Nero, and C.) it's the red matter-created singularity which really alters events, not Nero's destruction of the Kelvin. I also agree with those reasonings. He also doesn't like the term "new timeline," though I personally don't have an issue with that term. So, to reiterate, bp likes red matter timeline/RMT but not Nero's timeline/new timeline/NT. I like red matter timeline/RMT and don't like Nero's timeline/NT, but I can live with new timeline/NT. And there you have it. :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I support the direction this discussion is taking.--31dot 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
31dot, could you clarify? Where do you see this discussion going? Do you mean you like "NT" or "RMT" as a qualifier? Or are you just satisfied that we're aiming more towards creating separate articles rather than adding the info to the pre-existing pages? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, I was in a rush before and should have been clearer. I think NT/new timeline is the best choice, though RMT doesn't bother me. That's more what I was referring to, though I agree with the way the pages thing is going(sep. pages where warranted) I also think assuming the "Prime" Uhura's first name is Nyota is reasonable.--31dot 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The following was added later in the day:

  • Samy_M suggested a more, out-of-universe approach. He suggested that the use of (2009) or (2009 timeline) as a disambiguation would solve the confusion caused by using in-universe monikers. Majorthomme agreed with this.
  • Tim disagreed with using out-of-universe disambiguates, stating their removal from Memory Alpha in the past.
  • Samy_M questioned if we should create separate articles for everything seen in the alternate portions of the film, such as phasers specifically. He believes that this would solve the questioning of what gets separate or not. willyum agreed to an extent, and Tim stated that it should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

--Tim Thomason 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments Edit

I just returned, it's about 2am here, and I'm probably going to miss out on most of the re-opening fun during the next few days due to other commitments. So, please bear with me while I leave the following two comments:

  1. A personal one: I absolutely hate the moniker "Red matter timeline"! Sorry if anyone feels offended by this, but of all the different names that have been thrown around, this is easily the worst, sounding like something one might expect from a cheesy 50's sci-fi flick. Please, let's not go there, especially keeping in mind what someone said on IRC - whatever name we choose will, probably, be adopted by at least some part of the fandom. What I really like about the article qualifier "(NT)" is that there are so many different, but all fitting, interpretations of what it might mean: Nero['s] timeline, New timeline, New Trek, Narada-induced turnout ;) - everyone might find some interpretation he likes in those.
  2. An "official" one: please keep in mind that this discussion so far has not been instead of a wider consensus on the wiki, but just in preparation of one. By all means, start writing articles in 4 hours - but please don't cite this page as absolutely disallowing one thing or making "official policy" another.

Thank you, and have fun. -- Cid Highwind 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts/suggestions in no particular order:
  • Support moving the "original" Uhura to Nyota Uhura
  • Support separating Delta Vega and Delta Vega
  • "NT" sounds fine, but I guess this will be something that will be debated massively.
  • Make it a rule that all "NT" characters get separated, regardless of original length. Just for simplicity; otherwise it will be a pain looking up who is separated and who is not (e.g. in memorable quotes). For all other articles, split on a case by case basis.– Cleanse 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Red Matter Timeline or "Alternate Reality", and here is why:
  • The new timeline has to be able to be referenced in-universe. I'd like to see the first line of Cid's POV article on [[New Timeline]]. In-universe, what is the "new?" and what is the old? Certainly there is no "New Star Trek".
  • And how is it Nero's Timeline? He didn't cause it. He doesn't own it. He existed in both. It isn't his in any way, and after a few films, with other villains and events, are we going to still refer to it as Nero's?
  • Things went into the singularity and came out at different times. We don't actually know that the Nerada was the first thing through, or the earliest change to the timeline. The battle with the Kelvin may not have been the "first" change, maybe only the first big change.
  • The red-matter induced singularity caused the tunnel back in time, and split in the timeline. It makes more sense to call it after that.
  • Or, like DHorizon said, "alternate reality" is something they specifically referenced. The name alternate reality though is so generic, and not at all unique in Trek. It can, however, be described in an in-universe way since the characters have already done so.
Anyway, "NT" meaning New Timeline, or New Trek, or Nero's Timeline is the worst option because it can't be referenced or written about in the correct POV. So my first choice is "Red Matter timeline," even just because it will be easy to replace when we think of something better, and far second choice is "alternate reality." --bp 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If it was called Nero's timeline, I can explain why it is Nero's "fault", as it were. His ship was the first to traverse back through time to 2233, and his decision to attack the Kelvin ultimately created the change. So it is his fault. DaveSubspace Message 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, isn't the term "alternate reality" used in reference to the original timeline, rather than the new one? I don't recall the exact dialogue in the scene, but I think Spock is talking about Nero's origins, and Uhura says "an alternate reality?" Certainly, from the perspective of the characters in the film, the reality from which Nero and "Spock Prime" come is the alternate, not the one in which they exist.
I accept that "new timeline" suggests an out-of-universe point of view, but "alternate reality" sets the "original" timeline as the base. I recognize that Nero exists in both timelines, but so did the red matter (it was created in the original timeline, and was used in both — in the original, it was used to stop the supernova). The red matter and the black hole were merely the occasion for the timeline change — as Dave says, Nero was the agent. If we went with "NR", it could mean "Nero-altered timeline" rather than "Nero's timeline" if that's objectionable. —Josiah Rowe 05:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To answer the question "how is it Nero's timeline?" -- Dave is right -- It is his timeine because it was his decisions and actions that caused it to be! No matter how dead he is, he still initiated the whole ordeal by his own madness. This is also a good naming from POV purposes, because all the characters know that this is why things are different -- because of Nero. Kirk knows his father would have survived if not for Nero, etc.
I also dislike the red-matter naming convention as suggested, it sounds a little hokey as stated earlier.. -- Captain MKB 06:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've haven't seen this movie yet, planning to see it on Monday. However does this mean there are TWO universes in Star Trek now? A Roddenberry one and an Abrams one?

Nero didn't cause the split. He was caught in the black hole. Also, as I said already, he may not be the first thing sent back, or earliest the thing to appear. The timeline may actually fork much earlier. Certiainly the destruction of the Kelvin is not the fork. The entire Kelvin encounter was in the alternate timeline from the first detection of the "lightning storm" or maybe earlier. Anyway, "alternate reality" seems to be where this is going based on the RC. I'm Ok with that, it is just difficult to imagine The alternate reality when you think of TNG: "Parallels". --bp 06:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Nero's timeline? This is not Nero's timeline. He didnt create the timeline. The black hole did and he went insane in it and messed around with it, but he did not create it. Spock was also involved in this so it could also be called Spock's timeline (??). The best thing would be to stick to alternate timeline. Unless the writers of Star Trek say it is indeed Nero's Timeline we got no business naming it that. It was not intended to be nor will it be known in the Star Trek universe as Nero's timeline. It should be kept simple. – Distantlycharmed 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I support making the distinction name "Red Matter timeline". No matter how "hokey" it may be, that's beside the point of how accurate it is! --Defiant 11:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally extremely pleased we have began using "alternate reality" because it is a term directly from canon, and isn't a term fans have made up. However the articles now being created seem to have no standard to them. Some are written like norman articles, some have the name as "Title (alternate reality)" but content like a normal article and the best ones I think are when the title has the "This and that (alternate reality)" and the text makes it clear in the first sentence with the "...was this and that in the alternate reality". I think we should enforce this as the standard. --Pseudohuman 13:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pseudohuman. "Red Matter Timeline" and "Nero's Timeline" are made up terms by fans to refer to the events of this story. They are NOT what production says and advertises about this alternate timeline in which this story takes place. It has nothing to do with being hokey, it is just wrong. As an encyclopedia, it would be wrong and inappropriate of us to just make up a term about events, rather than sticking to standard as we know, because it makes sense to US. Unless the studios advertise and directly state' it as "Red Matter Timeline" and "Nero's Timeline" and say "the star trek universe is taking place in nero's timeline" etc, we got no business making up that term and inserting it into the Star Trek encyclopedia like that. "Alternate timeline" really is the best term to be used, especially because it will resonate more with people reading an article about let's say the planet Vulcan that was destroyed in that alternate reality rather in some "Neros's timeline" reality. – Distantlycharmed 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"Red matter timeline" is a descriptive title, often used on Memory Alpha when there is no official title. No one is making anything up, we're just describing something without a name. Since the red matter is what cause the split, we call the new timeline after it. --bp 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pesudohuman/Distantlycharmed - the problem with that is, if you're looking at the relevant scene again: not the "new" timeline is called the "alternate" one, but the "old" one. So, if "this is from canon" is our sole reasoning for a naming scheme, we are talking about tagging a bazillion articles as "alternate" while keeping only the new stuff untagged - not the other way around.

Re:bp - and "Red Matter timeline" is still not the final name that has been decided upon. -- Cid Highwind 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"alternate timeline reality" (our current qualifier) is the term used in the film when they (Spock/Uhura mostly) made the realization that things were altered... --Alan 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"Alternate reality" to be exact. That's the term the "alternate" Uhura uses to describe the current universe, not the original "prime reality." So Cid's statement is incorrect.--Tim Thomason 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
@Cid, no "It is canon" is not the sole reasoning for a naming scheme. The rest, see above what Alan and Tim Thomason said.
@ BP: Fact remains that "red matter timeline" or "nero's timeline" are terms coined up by fans to refer to the storyline in this movie. They are neither encyclopedic, nor do they go with canon, or have been endorsed and supported by production/writers of this movie. In this timeline, things were altered so it needs to be the alternate timeline, not Spock's or Nero's or Red Matter's. – Distantlycharmed 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
New guy here. The 2009 film timeline is now the timeline. The 60's show timeline is now the superseded timeline. - Starfield 22:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
But the original timeline still exists, is still the topic of this wiki, and still has more content here than the other reality. But thanks for chiming in. -- Captain MKB 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it still exists. I just don't like the tag "Spock (alternate reality)." It isn't the alternate reality, it is the reality. "Red matter timeline" sounds kinda dumb. Maybe Distantlycharmed is onto something. Maybe "Spock (altered reality)" would be better. - Starfield 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the new timeline should supersede the original one simply by virtue of which is chronologically newer. I think it is MUCH more important which one a) the original CREATORS of the whole concept were involved with and b) which one has VASTLY more material available. Once the new timeline starts to have an amount of stuff available that isn't completely being dwarfed by the original timeline, then it'll be a closer call, but for now, I think it's clear-cut that the new movie is still a variant and the original timeline is the default timeline. The new timeline doesn't automatically get super-respect simply because it's new. Respect must be earned through time and effort, showing that the new timeline can produce amounts and quality of material that can rival the original timeline. Once that happens, it becomes a contender for being considered the default timeline. Until then, it's just a variant timeline.--Samy Merchi 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
My vote goes for "Abramsverse" with an abbreviation like "ABU" (Abrams Universe) or some fan-created name like that. For example, you could label the Abramsverse Spock as Spock (ABU). "Alternate Reality" is too confusing, since there are other alternate realities and timelines (such as All Good Things or the Mirror Universe). I think the Battlestar Wiki provides an excellent example of how to structure a wiki that covers multiple continuities. Oh, and "Red Matter Timeline" just sounds cheesy. :P DarthXor 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You are joking right? "Abramsverse" as if he, a "real life" person, was not only the authority on Star Trek but he should also have a timeline named after him? With that reasoning, why don't we just create a new wiki and call it "JJ Abrams Star Trek"? Fan created names should not be used to reference this alternate reality.– Distantlycharmed 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
See Battlestar Galactica's solution to this - calling the reboot Battlestar Galactica (RDM) after Robert Moore, the producer. Calling it ABU wouldn't be amiss.
Well, OK, I can respect that... but surely there's something more descriptive than "alternate reality"... it's just too vague. Even "Red Matter Universe" sounds better than simply "alternate reality". DarthXor 07:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The problems I have with "alternate reality"/"altered reality"/"alternate timeline", etc. is... 1.) they're too generic and unspecific, and may consequently be misleading for some new users, and 2.) in reality, both parallel universes are shown as prime universes unlike the Mirror Universe, but the current system implies favoritism towards the older episodes/movies! While the Star Trek franchise is doing its best to seduce new viewers into watching, we shouldn't be discouraging new viewers from using this wiki! --Defiant 10:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
We've got a MU subsite. Are we to have a new subsite? AyalaofBorg 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But it is an alternate reality that is created here, because we have 40 years of Star Trek and six series and more than half a dozen movies created in the "main universe" timeline. That should be honored. I mean look, while we are discussing this amongst ourselves, people already say "we should refer to this new/alternate timeline as x, y, and z." That would not confuse new readers and it would allow us to honor and acknowledge these past 40 years of Star Trek material. Unlike Abrams, we dont have the luxury of just pressing the reset button and erase what's been going on with Star Trek for the past four decades. ("secondary" timeline would make sense too). – Distantlycharmed 15:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's slightly off-topic but, if we already have a Mirror Universe version of MA, we should certainly have one for the new timeline/incarnation of the franchise! There'd still be the same info available here, but the new version of MA would concern itself exclusively with the new Abramsverse (as some fans are describing the direction Trek is taking)! --Defiant 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Abramsverse" is a fan-made up name/term to refer to the new timeline. It is by no means true to production or encyclopedic. No one in ten years from now will remember this as the "Abramverse" but as the new or alternate timeline created in the Star Trek universe. Moreover, Abrams will not be directing all the subsequent Star Trek movies that will come out - even if the stories are going to be played out in this new / alternate timeline. – Distantlycharmed 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with what has been said about the advantage of not using a fan-made name for the new continuity. Nevertheless, I also see the disadvantage of "alternate universe" as, particularly in common use and for non-hardcore fans, this could easily be confused with "mirror universe" amongst others. With this in mind, I suggest "composite universe" as it would (in mathematical terms) be the antithesis of the "prime universe." I will grant from the get-go that "composite" could very well be dictionally misinterpreted to refer to a universe which somehow merges multiple realities together (comments?) but from at least one perspective, I felt it would be worth mentioning and considering in-light of current debate. – Adam Schiller 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Weaving in the New Movie with the Existing Fabric of Memory AlphaEdit

How do we reference minor supporting facts from the movie in existing Memory Alpha articles? For example, it may be possible to draw a connection between red matter and the artificial quantum singularity that powers Romulan war birds. The speculation is that red matter was used by Romulans to start singularities in war birds. (After all, where did Spock get all that red matter in such a hurry - from Quark's Bar for some gold-pressed latinum and a lifetime supply of snail juice???) Since this idea is pure speculation, it seems worth adding to the Talk Page of the artificial quantum singularity and red matter articles. Should this just be added to the pages, or should this kind of edit be discussed here on this page first? Existing policy for this Wiki has been that speculation may be added to Talk Pages and that speculation is discouraged in Articles. Similar questions arise about appropriately adding speculation and minor facts regarding trans-warp beaming, the presence of Orion slave girls in the academy, Sulu's folding katana - factual information that has little to do with when Nero popped up. --Winn cochrane 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think maybe we should start a new wiki for the information in the film. Who knows. Maybe the film will do really well and spawn a series of its own. That would be a lot of information to conflict with the official canon.- JustPhil 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather have one Wiki because many (if not most) of the plot devices are the same between this new movie and all previous work. The question about finding the best place for these new facts then becomes, "Will weaving in those details help explain the plot and tell the story of Star Trek?" The purpose of this Wiki (from "Goals of MA", and Memory Alpha:Why contribute) is to document canon. Why document canon? I say that Star Trek fans document canon in order to understand the stories of Star Trek. Trek to me explores the potential of technology to do good. Antimatter, singularities, and impulse drive are based on real-world concepts and technology. Generally speaking, science fiction has always imagined humanity after some advance in science and technology - in Trek's case, the dawn of the space age. In our generation space exploration is well-established and now continues to expand. If a link from Star Trek to Red matter to Singularity to singularity gravitational singularity gets someone to start thinking about real-world science and the impact of that science on social issues, then Memory Alpha has supported Star Trek and served its purpose. --Winn cochrane 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Where Spock "Prime" got the red matter from was dealt with in the Star Trek: Countdown comic, plotted by the movie writers.
[Of course, MA may choose not to treat ST:C as canon - and has a decision been made on that, or is there the automatic "not on screen, not canon" presumption pre-empting any consideration otherwise - but that shows at least the intended source of it]. - SanityOrMadness talk page 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this movie any different than any mirror universe episode we have seen on ENT and TOS where we basically created a separate entry for each character (mirror Kirk, mirror Archer, mirror Spock etc) and explained? Why does this have to be so complicated? Maybe in the movie that comes out later they will reset the timeline and then we went through two years of tagging everything that has happened in Star Trek from TOS to ENT as alternate, just to see the timeline be reset in the next movie maybe. The point is, this is all speculation and i dont see why we cant just treat this alternate timeline created by Abrams as any other mirror universe episode? And then the whole "Red Matter Timeline/Universe" thing. Create a wiki called the "Red Matter Star Trek"? Come on. – Distantlycharmed 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that the next movie will restore everything to as it was. But I doubt it. I strongly suspect that The Powers That Be chose this reboot specifically so that future writers will be able to do what they want, totally free from having to research canon and precedent, with no fear of looking over their shoulders for fanboys screaming "Continuity Error!" This in mind, it is my opinion that the best thing the admins might have done, is that on May 7, they might have renamed virtually all in-universe articles with the tag "(original canon)" or "(original reality)" or "(pre-Abrams)" or something. But the tags should be on the old articles, not the new ones. Spock has no mother, Kirk has no father. If there is a new series, or a few more sequels, it is going to get awfully tiresome putting "(alternate reality)" at the end of every single new article. --Keeves 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or complicated about adding an "alternate reality" tag to new articles pertaining to this new movie. I really dont get why it's a big deal. And why should we dump on and forget 40 years of Star Trek history and works because Abrams might wanna make it easier for his writing team to coin up more stories like that without having to do much research? Maybe this is a "parallel universe" and parallel universes run...well parallel to each other, so this timeline could exist side by side the canon we know. Maybe Daniels from ENT went back in time and fixed the timeline, so what Abrams did was an interesting story not bothering continuity - who knows? the point is, this is all speculation. We dont know what Abrams has in mind and it really doesnt matter. He is by no means the end-all, be-all of all Star Trek stories and he is certainly not the main creative head/authority superseding everyone else's work and efforts over the past forty + years. For now we should keep it simple and just add "alternate reality" tags to new articles, instead of going back and tagging thousands of articles on MA to distinguish from Abram's interpretation and the poetic license he took.
You might be right that in fact Abrams had setting the stage for new stories based on a "clean slate" in mind, but that would pretty much set back Star Trek 129 years (and us back to the world prior to TOS) which just blows because the whole point of Star Trek is to go where no man has gone before and not resetting everything back to square one so the writers dont have to inconvenience themselves – Distantlycharmed 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not just about writers not wanting to inconvenience themselves; it's about drama. If we know that Kirk ends up dying on Veridian II, that decreases the drama of a Kirk-in-jeopardy scene. Of course, we also know from dramatic convention that it's unlikely that Kirk will be killed (at least not permanently), but there is much less jeopardy when you know what the future holds. That's why they destroyed Vulcan: to show the audience that anything can happen. This new universe really is "where no one has gone before", at least more than something like Enterprise that had to end up in known territory. (Enterprise introduced the Temporal Cold War for the same dramatic reason, but never really carried it off.)
But this is just a fan dispute that's not directly relevant to the question of how to handle the material from the film on Memory Alpha. I'm OK with the "alternate reality" tag, although I'd prefer one that was a bit more specific. If anyone can find an interview in which Abrams, Kurtzman or Orci discusses the timeline issue, perhaps one of them uses a better term. —Josiah Rowe 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SPOCK: I submit it could be argued that - Not only as he would have been born before Kirk (and the alternate timeline); but, it is unlikely that he would have personally been influenced by the premature death of Kirk's father, prior to entering Star Fleet - all new movie information regarding his birth, education and life decisions prior to leaving Vulcan for Earth (along with related photo references) be included in both the recognized reality and alternate reality. Similarily those of Sarek and Amanda Grayson would be uneffected before the appearance of Nemo. Therefore details Sarek reveals about their relationship would be true regardless. Thoughts? rrtthatsme 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, totally. And using the same logic, everything about George Kirk prior to Nemo's appearance should be canon to both realities. --Keeves 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to Yesteryear, Spock was born in 2232, only a year before Nero's appearance. And we do not know how George Kirk's death inlfluenced him, but as long as there is a possibility that it did, I think all new movie info should go only to the alternate Spock article. QuiGonJinnTalk 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back to square one and starting an entirely new Star Trek with TOS originals at a younger age is not boldly going where no man has gone before. It saves on invention and is unimaginative. Not that i didnt like the movie, but when talking about creating something new it does not entail working on the same old formula/characters of yesteryear with just better special effects. We honestly dont know what future writers/producers will make of this. Maybe they will create a connection between this movie's timeline and something else in the main universe timeline of Star Trek, who knows. Boldly going where no man has gone before would be exploring Andromeda maybe. Star Trek has always been about exploring new frontier, discovering something new, the thrill of the unknown - the challenge of reaching beyond what is known and comfortable and within reach. It is about playing with questions about science, ideals and philosophy - according to Roddenberry's unique vision - not repeating old formulas and creating some sort of a "space opera" (which Abrams has a preference for). Anyway, I'm digressing. I guess the point is I really think this can be all kept very simple by just adding the "alternate timeline" tag to new articles to distinguish from and honor all the other works done in the Star Trek universe for over the past 40 + years. – Distantlycharmed 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the movie, and started to think about how to do this. Since the timeline never was restored, the only logical path would be to see the events of the film as reality, since that is what we have done with other timelines. They are real until they are restored. But then, of course, everything people has written here will suddenly not be true anymore, since nothing would be the same in a world with two Spocks, no Vulcan and so on. That leaves ut with thousands of articles which are not real, and about ten that are. Strange, at best. We simply can't do that, so I say that we, before we know more, simply lable the events of the film as an alternate timeline, and not facts. /Marten1000, who is not logged in -- 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the movie is that this is a new timeline - nothing will be restored. And...we've already done that... — Morder 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the FilmEdit

While I think the film is GREAT (when seen in IMAX - like actually BEING IN SPACE - fantastic - deserves an award)...someone may come up with criticism of the facts or continuity. Where do we park these discussions? For example (NOT A REAL ARGUMENT, JUST AN EXAMPLE): "Why did all that red matter that destroyed the Narada not envelop the Earth? My answer is that the red matter had to be injected into the core of a massive object to envelop it. Although the Narada was above the Earth, it wasn't in the center and thus could not disturb the planet below." - Where does this discussion go? The Star Trek (XI) film talk page? The red matter page? The V'Ger page, since the same question applies (how did V'Ger explode above Earth without taking half the planet with it???) I hope my example highlights the essence of the problem regarding criticism. --Winn cochrane 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't go anywhere. Nitpicks are not allowed on Memory Alpha. -- Michael Warren | Talk
Not even on a talk page? Winn cochrane 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussion of the article in terms of what should go in it - not general discussion of the subject. Sorry. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you direct me to the page with the policy on nitpicks/questions? If nitpicks like that aren't allowed, how 'does' one get their burning questions answered? Ctetc2007 07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Better yet, your "example" doesn't go anywhere because the Narada had warped away from Earth in pursuit of the Jellyfish when the collision happened.
Yes, they were quite far from Earth if their high-warp velocity was any indication.
And V'Ger didn't explode -- it disintegrated... Are you watching different movies than the rest of us? -- Captain MKB 16:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe Winn cochrane's in an alternate reality, watching these films! ;-) --Defiant 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New qualifier suggestions Edit

Ok, so, I have come to the conclusion that alternate reality is far too generic a term to use as the qualifier for the Star Trek pages. There have been so many alternate realities on Star Trek; we need a term that better differentiates the timeline of Star Trek from the rest of the timeline. So, here are some suggestions.

  1. I am still game for "red matter timeline," given the fact that it's red matter which is used to create the black hole that sends Nero back in time, altering the timeline. There's also the fact that "red matter" is unique to this particular movie.
  2. In the movie, the elder Spock is credited as "Spock Prime", referring to the fact that he is from the prime universe. As such, maybe we should come up for a good term for the new versions of the characters that is the opposite of prime. The opposite of prime is "composite", so... "composite timeline?"
  3. Since the split occurred in 2233, maybe we can use something like "2233 split", "2233 time split", or "2233 alteration."
  4. As I recall, the writers once referred to the prime timeline as "Timeline A" and the new timeline as "Timeline B." We could so that same. Can't remember where I heard that, though.
  5. If all else fails, we may have to create a real world POV qualifier for the articles ("Abramsverse," "Trek 2009 timeline," whatever). The Battlestar wiki does that and they seem to get along fine.

Again, these are just suggestions. Please comment on the above; if anyone have any other suggestions, please add them below so they can be considered. Thanks! --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Timeline A"/"Timeline B" comes from J. Michael Straczynski's proposed reboot from a few years back (which actually bears some similarities to what Abrams/Kurtzman/Orci eventually did). I agree that using a real-world qualifier would be better than the generic "alternate reality", even though that's the term that Uhura uses in the film. —Josiah Rowe 05:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If this is the only "alternate reality" we are actually acknowledging then using the current qualified isn't a problem. Everything else will remain status quo. --Alan 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
But it's not the only alternate reality we discuss. See the examples at alternate timeline; we also have pages like Starfleet uniform (alternate), which deal with other alternate realities/timelines. (I don't think that there's a meaningful distinction between "alternate reality" and "alternate timeline".) —Josiah Rowe 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Composite? Huh, doesn't prime mean first? Where did you get opposite of prime is composite? 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The opposite of a prime number is a composite number. I though it worked, anyway. I dunno, I'm tired. :-P --From Andoria with Love 05:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Alex Kurtzman calls it an "alternative timeline" in this interview. —Josiah Rowe 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about the New Universe as opposed to Prime Universe? It's still somewhat generic but sounds cool. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
New Universe means something different to comics fans, though that's not an insurmountable obstacle. —Josiah Rowe 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't use New Universe. Sure, it's new now... but, 40 years from now, when somebody reboots Star Trek again, it won't be New anymore.
I agree, New Universe will be invalid if this is rebooted again. I prefer Nero Timeline, or even moreso, AbramsVerse which is similar to the already established ShatnerVerse. 14:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
My vote is to maintain future flexibility by putting no qualifier at all on articles relating to the reboot, and instead we can enshrine the original timeline by calling it "Prime". Not only does "Spock Prime" set a precedent for this, but also check out the Wikipedia article about Earth Prime for other examples of this usage. With little or no canon references appearing, articles titled "James T. Kirk (Prime)" or "Starfleet (Prime)" would end up getting few or no edits, while "James T. Kirk" and "Starfleet" would continue to grow. Perhaps in deference to the cast listing, "Spock Prime" would have the distinction of not having parentheses. --Keeves 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "red matter timeline" just really sounds silly. As Josiah said, Kurtzman used the term "alternate timeline" and in the movie itself Uhura says "alternate" reality. We also should not name the timeline after the director of the movie. This will create issues as then later you can have other directors and because directors have nothing to do with "in universe". stories anyway. I dont think "alternate" is too generic, since there is the main universe , mirror and now alternate (this movie). Yes there have been alternate realities within episodes in various Star Trek seires but they all fit in canon (main universe). "Prime" and "composite" universe sounds ok too (better than "red matter timeline" or "Abramuniverse").
If all subsequent movies are building on this alternate timeline, then naming it alternate timeline makes sense. If somehow they decide to reset the timeline and everything will be back to as we know it, then the term "alternate timeline" will still make sense.
I strongly suggest we keep it simple. Going back and tagging thousands of articles on MA is not the solution or the wisest. For example, there is nothing complicated about referring to the new uniforms on the "starfleet uniforms" page as "In the timeline created by Nero in 2233, these kinds of uniforms x, y, and z were worn by Starfleet". – Distantlycharmed 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Same uniforms were worn on the Kelvin, weren't they? So we can conclude that they were worn in the main timeline in 2233 too, and were changed to TOS version later, while they weren't changed in the alternate timeline. Ausir 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Different uniforms in the Kelvin era. See George Kirk, for example.
You should follow the lead of the credits and use Spock (prime), James Kirk (prime), etc. This honors the original continuity as the prime one. Then the "2009 film timeline" should be used without qualifiers to reflect the fact that this is now the reality as it exists, as altered. I know that probably represents a lot of work, but that is the best solution, IMHO. [Edit: What Keeves said. (I just read it.) It makes sense that the unqualified articles are the ones that grow.] - Starfield 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion "the alternate reality" is not a generic term enogh to warrant a fanon replacement term. It is the only canon term used in the movie. I think we should go with it. Until another canon term comes along. What ever term we use, will end up in the in-universe text, and I do not think there should be any fanon-terminology there. --Pseudohuman 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Incursion? Temporal incursion? Nero incursion? Something with the word "incursion" in it, maybe. J Di 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I will say this just one last time, and then I'll bow out of the conversation: I see no reason why The Powers That Be would want to revert to the original timeline, and if new movies and new episodes are indeed produced about a Kirk who has no father, and a Spock who has no mother, then this "Alternate Reality" will ultimately become the 'New' Reality, and future users of Memory Alpha will be in a very awkward and clumsy place. According to Star Trek (film)#Sequel, "On 30 March 2009, it was announced that Paramount was moving forward with a sequel to Star Trek. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have again been hired to write the screenplay, along with the first film's producer, Damon Lindelof. J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk will again be producing via Bad Robot, along with Orci and Kurtzman." If any of those poeple could simply confirm or deny whether or not this new continuity will be permanent for the foreseeable future, it would really help us a lot. --Keeves 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately, yes, it will supersede the original timeline, *if* lots and lots of future Trek is set in this timeline. Key word being "ultimately", and *not* "now". One sequel -- two movies -- are *hardly* enough to compensate for ten movies and 28 seasons of TV -- about 4 hours versus about 580 hours of entertainment. Whatever the current creators want is irrelevant -- every creator wants their take to be the definitive one, that's obvious, but we as a wiki should work on a more neutral, objective basis and not give certain creators wish fulfillment just on the basis of them being the newest joinees to the club of Trek writers. If anything, the rookies have a *longer* road to prove themselves than the more established Trek creators, not an instant path to glory.--Samy Merchi 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I think "prime" as a designator gives honor to the previous characters being the "prime" ones. But the neutral, in-universe objective facts are that the new timeline has effectively replaced the "prime" timeline. Just ask Spock prime. - Starfield 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well of course the new one has replaced the prime one *for Spock* -- HE CURRENTLY RESIDES IN THE NEW ONE. :) But ask anybody who resides in the old one whether theirs is replaced and you'll get a different answer! Picard or Janeway, I'm sure, don't think theirs is replaced; to them, Spock just disappeared through a black hole into an alternate universe. You're going by in-universe *subjective* facts. As is my Picard/Janeway perspective, subjective as well. There *is no* objective fact about whether the original timeline still exists or not. We do not have accurate temporal telemetry on the survival of that timeline. We cannot assume it has been destroyed, we cannot assume it survives -- its fate is still up in the air. For all we know, the next movie might have Kirk-2 meeting Picard Prime, thus confirming the survival of the other timeline as well. We should not make any rash decisions about the universe's fate since we do not have any objective facts on it so far, only subjective ones. --Samy Merchi 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
*scratches head* There is still a timeline where a giant, ugly Romulan starship didn't appear through a black hole in 2233? Nero entered into the "prime" timeline and proceeded to mess with history. This wasn't "fixed" at the end like your average episode. - Starfield 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, there is still a timeline where Nero didn't appear in 2233. The "Prime" timeline survives, separate from the "Reboot" timeline. Both continue on. This has been explicitly and unambiguously confirmed by writer Bob Orci, for example [here]. The late 24th century continues, with Janeway as an Admiral, Riker on the Titan, and the upcoming Star Trek Online game is set in that continuing timeline. At the same time, the reboot timeline that Nero created when he went back to 2233, also continues, parallel to the original timeline. This has been said very clearly by the writers off-screen, and there is no on-screen evidence to the contrary to not take them at their word. --Samy Merchi 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I read the link, and if that is the case, I hereby declare quantum mechanics to be total bullcrap. Nero traveled to the prime timeline. He entered the timeline. He exists in that timeline starting in 2233. If we were writing a biography of George Kirk's life, I do not see any way where it could logically follow where events unfold where the most significant event in his life in 2233 is the birth of his son. But, that won't affect my enjoyment of "Star Trek." There's a lot of questionable science there. I defer to the creator's statements on the matter as canon. - Starfield 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Look, Uhura's "alternative reality" distinction statement, and the dialogue between Spock's where it becomes apparent that it was always completely irrelevant to "reapair this timeline", only that it was the prime-Spock's friendship with prime-Kirk that motivated his interference to unite the crew he knew in the prime-universe. This was in the movie to make the distinction between all the previous timetravel stuff. Why, because the new timeline exists in a new quantum reality and the prime-universe continues to exist in it's own. As is discussed in the interview with Orci here -> [4] This was at least least the writes intention regarding this films effect to continuity. --Pseudohuman 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I too feel that 'Alternate Reality' is too generic. It's a description, not a name, and there are plenty of Alternate Timeline references that have nothing to do with the new movie's continuity. Also, down there road if there is another alternate reality we'd have two of them. I supposed I'd most be in favor of the "Timeline B" distinction, with the Prime Universe remaining for the original one. I'd rather use anything other than simply "an alternate reality." (Although, since the Jellyfish gives a stardate beginning with "2387" or whatever, I suppose you could argue that we are already seeing events from two alternate timelines, and the 'original' isn't even in the movie. But I digress...)– AJHayson 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Jellyfish probably just translated the stardate into one which Spock of that period would understand. --From Andoria with Love 02:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What other "alternate timeline" references are out there that have nothing to do with the new movie's continuity? If you are referring to alternate timelines in an episode and/or already existing movies, then, as mentioned above, those are part of the canon of the Main Universe we already know anyway.
And I agree with Psudohuman that "Alternate Reality" is not a generic term, especially because it has been used by the writers and in the movie itself. It is encyclopedic. Fan terminology really should not be used in this case in order to refer to this alternate timeline. I have yet to hear a compelling argument based on evidence as to why it would be more encyclopedic and appropriate, given all factors and concerns mentioned above, to use a terminology coined up by fans who think that "alternate reality/timeline" just doesnt sound exotic enough. As mentioned above, keeping "alternate reality/timeline" would work no matter which way the writers/producers decide to go next time: by either continuing on developing the story of Kirk & Co in the alternate timeline they created with this movie or by connecting it with the main timeline we have known for 40 years. Abrams is not the authority on Star Trek and his work does not supersede that of everything and everyone else over the past forty years, because he decided to follow the Hollywood prequel craze. The original timeline should be honored as exactly that. – Distantlycharmed 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Other "alternate timelines" include the anti-time future (and anti-time past, and anti-time present), which contains pages like USS Pasteur and Irumodic Syndrome, which may or may not exist in the "prime" timeline. Then there's the timeline from "The Visitor", which includes pages like Korena Sisko and Morn's. There's also Starfleet uniform (alternate), which deals with uniforms seen in multiple alternate timelines. These timelines aren't really part of the prime universe's timeline — we only know about them because someone from the prime universe (Picard, Sisko) traveled to them and back. They're still described (accurately) as "alternate timelines", which is potentially confusing if we continue to refer to the new timeline as the alternate timeline.
The cast, crew and writers of Star Trek have all been signed for two more films, and the writers have made it clear that they plan to continue in the current timeline without using any more time or dimensional travel. (For example, see here, where Orci says, "Despite [time travel's] overuse, we thought 'let's use it one more time before we put it away, and then not use it again.' " Although plans can change, all evidence at hand indicates that the future of Star Trek will be in this timeline.
It's true that this timeline is "alternate" to the timeline of prior Star Trek. (I won't see the film again until next weekend, so I won't be able to check for myself whether Uhura's line about "an alternate timeline" is a reference to the new or old timeline — does anyone recall for certain?) But it's also true that going forward, it is the original timeline which is "alternate". The POV of Memory Alpha has to be that of "Spock Prime" — aware of the existence of the original timeline, but "present" in the new one. As far as we know, in-universe only Spock Prime has experience of both realities, so if we want to write about both from an in-universe point of view, it has to be Spock's. And he's living in a reality in which Vulcan has been destroyed, and the Enterprise has lots of pipes in its engine room. If he was discussing his past with anyone, he'd say, "I lived most of my life in an alternate reality, in which Vulcan was not destroyed." So from that point of view, "Vulcan (alternate reality)" would be the planet he remembers, not the one that he saw destroyed.
Because of this, I'm now leaning towards Keeves' suggestion of using "(Prime)" for articles concerning the original reality (where disambiguation is required: there's no need, for example, to move Jean-Luc Picard to Jean-Luc Picard (Prime), because the only Jean-Luc Picard we know anything about is the one in the Prime reality, so no disambiguation is necessary). That, just like "alternate reality", is supported by the filmmakers' usage; it retains the primacy of the original timeline, which contains many hundreds of hours of Star Trek; and it's not an invented fanon term. But it also acknowledges that the new timeline is the "real" one, not just an alternate like the anti-time future from "All Good Things...". —Josiah Rowe 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to agree with Josiah as above, right down to not having to add the Prime tag to articles not yet effected. The only problem I see with this which still keeps 'Red Matter Timeline' ahead in my mind is that Red Matter is a plot element comprehensible and usable by in-character and in-world narrators, while Prime is from the credits and is not. 'Alternate Reality', despite the fact that Uhuru said it to (frankly) help spell it out for a possibly-confused audience, does not make in-world sense either. As others point out, to those characters it's the original timeline that'd be alternate. ...
Not to add even more to the debate, but another term could be 'post-singularity', since the creation of a singularity from the Milky-Way-destroying supernova, and the appearance of the Narada out of a singularity in 2233, could be used both in-universe and outside, is referenced in the film (the singularities at least), and sounds cool to boot.  ;) I agree that Red Matter sounds sort of retro, but then, retro is not something to be ashamed of, is well at work in the new Trek, and remains in-universe. Whatever may be, I think the need to come up with something that would make sense in an in-universe article is important. ... By the way, the novelization is out on the 10th, and may contain more useful terminology, or at least a hardcopy of whatever it is Uhura says.  :) --Aqaraza 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I also considered moving the original articles to "so-and-so (prime)", but I'm not sure how well the majority of the community will take that. By the way, the credits are canon, so long as they aren't screwed up (i.e. having Uhura credited as "Uhuru" in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country). As for what Uhura says, her line is "An alternate reality," to which Spock replies, "Precisely." --From Andoria with Love 05:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But was she referring to her own timeline or the one from which Nero comes? I thought it was the latter (but I'm not at all sure). —Josiah Rowe 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a big milestone for Memory Alpha. The question is how it chooses to pursue canon, now that there are essentially multiple versions. Does it continue to espouse the canon as it existed before the movie, or does it use what will be canon for the franchise as it is now?

The problem is in what canon means. Is it what the writers use to make future works? Or is it what the fans conclude to be true? If the latter, which fans? Whatever we do, we can't throw out the past, but we also cannot ignore the future. Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 06:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The alternate reality in this film is really something that hasn't been seen before in Trek, ever. It isn't another alternative timeline we've seen before, but an artificially generated quantum reality. So this is the first and only known occurance of such a phenomenon. And if there is only one, then it isn't generic. We don't need to make up a name for it. --Pseudohuman 09:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's approach this from another angle: Whatever name we decide upon, it should be one that isn't terribly confusing to the majority of readers. In that case, we shouldn't rely on the (non-)difference of "alternate timeline" vs. "alternate reality". As can clearly be observed in this and related discussions as well as in already created articles, the terms "timeline", "reality" and "universe" are used interchangeably by most people. This may not be completely accurate scientifically, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that, for most people, the important part of the title will be the first word, not the second.
With that in mind, using "alternate" as the term to describe this new timeline/reality would be confusing - just look at all the articles that already talk about something "alternate" (1, 2, 3, 4 and many more...). In short, just read the following sentence taken from the current version of "Alternate reality" and honestly tell me it isn't confusing: "The alternate reality is an alternate timeline forked from the prime reality. -- Cid Highwind 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont find this confusing at all. Everyone knows (and I'm not talking someone who just started watching Star Trek like 2 months ago), that the entire Star Trek universe is based on one consistent timeline (despite small incursions in various one hour episodes here and there that were "fixed" anyway and still fit into the entire main timeline/canon). This is what makes (made) Star Trek so great: the fact that you had this consistency throughout. This is not news to anyone and this is not "Stargate" or "Galactica" or whatever else other shows are out there. It's Star Trek. Therefore, the term alternate timeline would not be confusing. It really is not that hard to distinguish this 100 minutes movie from all the other 40 years of Trek works produced. Finally, the writers themselves as well as the movie itself refers to this as "alternate" and uses that term several times. So why shouldnt we stick with it? You'll never have people sit together and say "oh yeah you know the new star trek that is based on this red matter timeline/nero's timeline" or "how did you like the new star trek based on Abrams' timeline". Who says that?? No one. Everyone says alternate reality/timeline etc. There is no reason to nullify, like Kurtzman et al did, 40 plus years of Trek history and change around thousands of articles and pages on MA because of a couple of movies. Using terms coined up by fans to refer to in universe facts/events like this is unencyclopedic. – Distantlycharmed 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That still doesn't address the fact that the "alternate" qualifier is already in use on this site, and is used to mean various other things than "this fact is from the new 2009 timeline". We either find a new qualifier for this, or we discontinue its use to qualify random other timelines and/or realities. Continuing to use it for both is confusing. -- Cid Highwind 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Those alternate qualifiers that were used in Apocrypha dont count because they are not canon and never were. With respect to uniforms or something like that, it will then just be a matter of either removing such qualifiers or specifying. For example, "in a timeline created by/in XYZ, they wore these uniforms". There are not thousands upon thousands of articles that need to changed on account of it. Moreover, "alternate" is the only term used in the film to refer to this new timeline created, and not "red matter" or "nero" or what have you. (btw, we could call it new timeline). – Distantlycharmed 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editing break Edit

(Hope you don't mind the heading break) How about, we do what I suggested a, seemingly, long time ago. For about the thirteen or so necessary pages (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, Uhura, Pike, Sarek, Amanda, USS Enterprise, Spacedock, I guess Vulcan, basically any page with exceptional differences that can't be sectioned from the Prime page) we create a disambiguation at the "root" page. For example, at James T. Kirk:

You may be looking for:

We don't treat the "Prime" reality and the "alternate reality" any differently (even if the characters do), as we shouldn't promote one as better than the rest. We also don't note the "alternate" status on pages exclusive to that reality (for example, Keenser or Gaila or Gilliam), just as we won't note the "Prime" status on pages exclusive to that reality (Picard, Sisko, et cetera).

The term "alternate reality" is the only term used in the film, and I checked, is exclusive to the film (yes, "alternate timeline," "alternate universe," and "parallel reality" have been used). The qualifier has some problems, but it's just as confusing at first glance as the "mirror" qualifer, and that's worked out. And of course, we should change the first sentence on the alternate reality page, and perhaps write a prime reality or some such page in the future.--Tim Thomason 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, and is perhaps the best compromise, in the sense that everyone will be able to grumble about it. Spock (Whichever the hell you prefer) would approve. --Keeves 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Tim, I like that. There is prime, there is alternate and there is mirror. It reflects exactly what has been going on and makes clear distinctions so as to not confuse anyone. – Distantlycharmed 18:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the fact that whatever we're talking about is called AR, AT, AU and PR interchangeably only strengthens my point, which I feel is still conveniently ignored. If we want to signal that this is not just some run-of-the-mill random timeline hiccup that's forgotten next week, but in fact a new "second main timeline", we need some name that is not also used for those random timelines as well. -- Cid Highwind 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How about new timeline? – Distantlycharmed 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally think that this would not be the worst of choices - and also, as has already been suggested further above, just using its abbreviation (for example: Spock (NT)) would have the nice side effect of possibly being an abbreviation of either "new timeline", or "Nero timeline" (which I'd still prefer), or "Narada timeline" (or "Next Tales", or "Narrative Turnout", or...). We'd still need to determine which one of those to use when spelled out, but (NT) would be a good qualifier for article titles, I think. -- Cid Highwind 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it is a new timeline that has been created. Calling it Nero's is too subjective. Plus, others were part of this new timeline, such as Spock, who, if I remember correctly, suggested using red matter to get rid of the supernova etc. I still believe alternate to be the best, but new would work because it is still objective and encyclopedic enough and not some fan made-up term for MA only (i.e. not supported by production). – Distantlycharmed 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's a pretty good idea... designating the main universe "Prime" and the new one "Alternate" should help alleviate confusion. However, I would capitalize "Alternate" when referring to the new universe, to distinguish it from the other "alternate" realities. DarthXor 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Timeline is imho better at least than alternate timeline, for all the problems mentioned above wrt the use of that term in many other places. Plus, 'New Timeline' would have the advantage of blunt simplicity; even the completely new fan would understand exactly what was meant by the short-and-sweet term, better than if it were 'alternate'. Eventually, the timeline will be old, and it'll feel weird to call it 'New Timeline'. But maybe by then there will be an accepted technical term out there. Until then it generically satisfies the needs at hand. it may not be anyone's favorite, but even a 'Red Matter Timeliner' like myself doesn't hate it.  ;) --Aqaraza 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with "new timeline" too. It has the advantage that if our imaginary point of view is that of "Spock Prime", it's something that makes sense from that point of view (as Spock would consider himself as living in a new timeline). And whatever disambiguator we choose, I think that Keeves' proposal of having a neutral disambiguation page, with (prime timeline) or (new timeline) is a good one. —Josiah Rowe 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I still maintain that New Timeline is too short-sighted. It won't be new forever. I would prefer Alternate over New. DarthXor 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Alternate is far too vague - it's one of the two standard adjectives (the other being parallel) used for describing "other universes/realities/timelines within a multiversal system". Hell, the Mirror Universe was described as "the alternate universe" within DS9 (at the very least, Quark to MirrorEzri in "The Emperor's New Cloak"), and I wouldn't expect readers to immediately recognise *a* difference between "alternate reality", "alternate universe" or "alternate reality", since they get treated interchangeability in general use.
At the same time, I agree with your problem with "New". I would rather use a more descriptive disambiguator. - SanityOrMadness talk page 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should go back and add "Prime" to the articles not involved with this movie. If you did it for just the characters that needed disambiguating, you would have to do it for all of them. --31dot 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just watched it again, and it seems that Uhura is referring to the reality of the movie. Spock speaks of the string of events which Nero has set into motion, and Uhura calls the characters' reality an 'alternate reality' in relation to the one Nero knows. So there's that.

In addition, I read an interesting comment today that got me thinking. The writer's theory is that what is represented is not simply an alternate timeline in the same universe, but an alternate universe, akin to the Mirror universe, except that things are not different in essence but mainly in detail. It even makes a convenient way to explain initial differences in technology (the Kelvin's advances). Either way, though, the word 'reality' encompasses either the idea of a timeline or a universe in a word that's better than both.

So even though I myself prefer tying it to an in-world cause such as Red Matter, simply calling it 'Alternate Reality' seems easiest. Certainly the words 'timeline' and 'universe' should be dropped from the running as being too specific; 'reality' encompasses more, including the unsolvable mysteries of the initial differences. I've changed opinion on this about 6 times now... --Aqaraza 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be alternate timeline and not alternate reality. New timeline or alternate timeline will be something that everyone will understand when looking at Kirk's profile, for example, and wanting to distinguish between the main universe Kirk and the one in new timeline. Again, fan-made up terms that are not supported by production and are kind of subjective should not be used in a Star Trek encyclopedia. New or alternate timeline are still the most appropriate terms to refer to this...well... new alternate timeline that has been created. Also, no matter how many movies will be made, this will still be the new timeline that's been created in the Star Trek universe/canon. – Distantlycharmed 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But.. Uhura says 'Alternate reality', I'm pretty dead-certain. I actually had thought it was you who had first made the case that we should go with what was spoken in the film. I'm just suggesting that maybe that word ('reality') is less careless than it seems, since it preserves an ambiguity that I think is deliberate on the part of the writers (and which neither 'timeline' nor 'universe' preserve)... --Aqaraza 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"New timeline" would work until they decide to do it again in 43 years. :)
Aqaraza is right that if you want to be precise about using in-universe terms, we should probably choose "alternate reality" over "alternate timeline". (By the way, thanks for checking on the referent of Uhura's line, Aqaraza — that makes things a bit simpler.)
31dot suggests above that if you disambiguate for characters (places, etc.) who need disambiguation, you should also disambiguate for characters that don't. I disagree. We can use article text and categories to identify which timeline/reality an article is about. It makes sense to distinguish James T. Kirk (Prime) from James T. Kirk (alternate reality), but there's no need to talk about Jean-Luc Picard (Prime) or Keenser (alternate reality). Saying that every page title should indicate which reality it's referring to strikes me as the sort of "foolish consistency" about which Emerson warned. —Josiah Rowe 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
But we shouldn't have to use article text to identify the timeline a character is from. I dislike the ideas of pages like Keenser and Gaila expressly stating that they occur in an "alternate reality" or "Nero's timeline," as I feel it's the same situation if we just edited, say, Kivas Fajo's page to say he existed in the "prime universe." That's unnecessary and elevates one continuity over the other. If we're supposed to be an omniscient library, we have to be neutral on this point, as I tried to express above with my proposal. It should only effect about 13 pages directly, maybe a few more, maybe a few less. There might be 10-20 other articles that are small enough, or have a small amount of info to keep it all from separating into multiple pages.--Tim Thomason 04:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point about article text. But what about using categories? We've already got Category:Mirror universe and its subcategories. Couldn't we also have Category:Prime reality and Category:Alternate reality? Categories like Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel (alternate reality) could be subcats (or sub-subcats) of Category: Alternate reality. I see that someone's already created Category:Alternate reality characters, which may be worded with the wrong POV, but shows that others are thinking this way.
I'm thinking that for someone like Gaila (Orion) we wouldn't use either article text or disambiguation in the title; we would merely add a category which would indicate that she exists in the alternate reality. Eventually, we could do the same for prime reality characters (ships, places, etc.). Pages like USS Farragut (23rd century) could be placed in both Category:Prime reality vessels and Category:Alternate reality vessels, or whatever wording we choose. —Josiah Rowe 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the notion that all of this will only affect a handful of pages is correct. Even if only 13 pages are going to need disambiguation (not even sure about that), we definitely need to make note of the timeline something is hailing from in other cases: take Battle of Vulcan as one example. We mustn't pretend that everything is the same - because it isn't. This battle hasn't taken place in the past of any of the 24th century characters we know and wrote about, and by not making note of that discrepancy, we'd deliberately be more confusing than we need to be.
This situation is not the same as continuity errors during production, which we pretend don't exist. The differences here are real, and by design. Regarding the question of how to exactly make readers aware of this, have a look at these "article type bars": User:Cid Highwind/articletype. -- Cid Highwind 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Josiah. There is no need to tag "every" article and page and person as "prime" or "alternate" universe if they were not involved in the movie. Saying Jean-Luc Picard (Prime) is really superfluous. @ Aqaraza: I think both timeline and reality as well as new and alternate make sense and are encyclopedic. – Distantlycharmed 06:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"Alternate" would work if and only if it was the only incidence of something from outside the "prime" universe in Trek - I've already pulled up an example of a character (Quark) referring to the Mirror Universe as "the Alternate Universe" - and to most people, whether "universe", "timeline" or "reality" is used is a distinction without a difference.
Hell, even in the movie, it's "an alternate reality", not "the Alternate Reality" - ultimately, if you go down the road of using "alternate", you then need to further disambiguate it as (2233 alternate reality) or somesuch. - SanityOrMadness talk page 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't 2.0 work? It is both easily understood by everyone and very descriptive of the situation.
Something like that would also be meaningful to those who have seen the movie, while also keeping recent changes less spoiler-loaded than it currently is. --Defiant 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2.0 is a modern slang term (a la web 2.0), so wouldn't make sense from an in-world point of view. I think as regards the term used, someone in admin circles here should encapsulate our dilemma and write a note to Kurtzman, Orci and Abrams asking for ideas. Their opinions alone may not be canon, but they're as good ours!  ;) Plus, they got us into this mess.

Anyone who hasn't examined Cid Highwind's ID bars should. The concept is great, and if it's as easy as adding a single tag to an article, it just may work, whatever we call the new reality. I do think that if a visual tag is going to help ID all articles, their content should be designed carefully. (Cid's look really great, but other interps are possible; maybe a contest.) User:Cid Highwind/articletype --Aqaraza 14:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're an elegant solution. Perhaps the templates could also include categories, so that pages could be categorized by POV or timeline? —Josiah Rowe 05:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Watched the movie again yesterday, so two things - First, I'm still pretty sure that Uhura exclaimed "an alternate reality?" in reaction to the rest of the bridge crew discussing the timeline Nero came from. It only makes sense - given the choice, would you call your own universe the "alternate" one, or the unknown different universe?
Second, another naming suggestion - the bridge discussion ends with someone (Spock?) stating: "whatever our destinies were [in the original timeline], they're changed". So, I suggest "Changed Destiny", or "Changed Destinies". It's "official", directly from film dialogue. It's "in-universe", the characters know that their destinies have changed in comparison to some unknown "original". It's "self-explanatory" for our readers, it doesn't favor one timeline over the other in either way, and it's not related to any specific event, object or person from this movie. It seems to evade all criticism that has been stated in reply to any of the other suggestions so far. -- Cid Highwind 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, Uhura's pronouncement will be the source of much ongoing analysis.  :) I heard it the other way around, even though I wanted very much to hear it the way you describe. I do like your intriguing alternative. It is a direct quote, and it definitely refers to the universe of the film. He said '...our destinies have changed'. Simply removing the word 'have' leaves 'Destinies Changed' which sounds like a good title for a novel.  ;) Is it too poetical to be believable as an in-universe name they'd use for their own condition? Maybe not, since that's exactly the spirit in which it's uttered. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts. --Aqaraza 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"Changed Destiny"? How would you refer to that: "For James T. Kirk in the timeline created in the Changed Destiny Universe, see James T. Kirk (Changed Destiny)" ? Come on. Aside from really sounding awkward, I dont find it encyclopedic because destiny is more of a personal attitude towards something. Also, destiny suggests fate and that in fact the new timeline is an "aberration" to what was meant to be in the grand scheme of things etc. Uhura seems to be lamenting more about the fact that their lives are going to be different from what they were in the alternate timeline, and that they have to come to terms with it, rather than making a sound scientific observation to correctly categorize their situation. Destiny is also very specific, whereas "alternate" encompasses the entire story line/premise of this new universe created, without making any value judgments. Production refers to this as an "alternate" timeline, although "new" would work as well because heck this is a new timeline that's been created. I really dont see what the issue is. Anyway, I like what was suggested by Tim Thomason above and the tags by Cid. It's simple, it's accurate, it's encyclopedic and production supported.
Re criticisms that people might not get it: if anyone coming to MA for info is sort of half-awake and somewhat aware of Star Trek, they won't have a hard time understanding what "new timeline created by Nero's incursion" could possibly mean. Let's give people that much credit. – Distantlycharmed 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding referral, you're making this sound much more awkward than it really has to be. If you simply replaced "changed destiny" with "alternate reality" (further qualified enough to specify this alternate reality instead of any generic one) in your suggestion, it would sound just as awkward. So, instead, my suggestion would be:
  1. qualified article titles like "James T. Kirk (CD)" - similar to the "NT" abbreviation that had already been brought up above.
  2. the articletype bar, containing "Changed Destiny" as its title - just like it would otherwise have "New Timeline" as title. I consider those bars to be "meta information" anyway, so any in-universe concerns shouldn't play a role here.
  3. Mentioning this in in-universe content: Since the "new" timeline characters know about the "old" timeline, but not vice versa, there won't be a situation where this name is mentioned. This leaves...
  4. Aggregate articles containing information from both "old" and "new" timeline. If we don't split those articles in the first place (which I'd prefer in many cases), we need some out-of-universe means to separate these informations, anyway. A header called "Changed Destiny" would neither be better nor worse than one called "New Timeline", I think.
  5. disambiguation notes: That one could be as simple as "Changed Destiny: James T. Kirk (CD)"
--Cid Highwind 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Err, I am not sure I understand why you say that the *new* timeline characters know about the *old* timeline. I mean yes they are aware of it, if that's what you mean, but there is no indication in the movie that they know what happened there exactly and to whom. Spock didnt elaborate. Also, there are still problems, aside from being awkward, with using the term "destiny" (it really implies some sort of higher powers in place that create your fate and destiny and in Star Trek you dont wanna go there). If we go down that route, we could also call it "parallel" universe since if these two exist side by side, then they are parallel (of course, Spock is now in this new timeline so it means he must be missing in the old timeline, which wouldnt make sense ....(thinking out loud). So anyway, you can see how this can create the kind of mind-twisting confusion that only time travel can create.
My next question: how would you even refer to that in text? Would you say "Vulcan was destroyed in the changed destiny timeline"? You dont think that sounds a little...weird? Why dont we stick with new or alternate?
re the usage of alternate: the term "god" is used many times throughout the Star Trek universe - yet we are able to distinguish each usage depending on who we are talking about and in what context and we dont insist that everytime the term "god" is used, it has to mean the same god. Similarly, just because the term "alternate" has been used throughout, doesnt mean it is impossible to distinguish just *any* alternate timeline from the alternate timeline. Of course, if we call it new, that would solve that dilemma as well (which I dont think it is). – Distantlycharmed 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to add fuel to the fire, Changed Destiny would actually honor part of the intent of the reboot, which is that there is destiny at work, it's necessary to develop suspense about the fate of (say) Kirk's or Spock's life long-term, and it's even necessary to explain some of the unlikelihoods of the plot. Witness: -- --Aqaraza 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
MTV: Out of the entire universe, how do Elder Spock and Kirk happen to get stranded on the same planet? Are we expected to believe it's just a coincidence?
Kurtzman: One of the things we're playing to is the theme of destiny ... the idea that it wasn't actually random chance. It seems like random chance if you run into Spock in that cave, but it wasn't. And in some way, the time stream is trying to mend itself.
MTV: And how about Scotty? Is it a coincidence that he happens to be on that moon as well?
Kurtzman: It goes back to the idea that the time stream is trying to mend itself. These characters are essentially destined to find each other in one way or another - and that fate is literally bringing them together.
Re:Distantlycharmed - Yes, "awareness" is obviously what I had in mind. The "new" characters are aware of the "old" timeline - not necessarily about each and every action, but aware enough that a reference "new->old" might turn up in some in-universe context. However, the "old" characters are definitely not aware of the "new" timeline - which means that a reference "old->new" will not turn up, and we thus don't need a in-universe-compatible name to address the "new" from an in-old-universe article. This also answers your second question: There simply is no place for a sentence like "Vulcan was destroyed in the XYZ timeline" in any in-universe article - and if it's a production POV article, the sentence might as well be "Star Trek depicted the destruction of Vulcan." Finally, regarding the "god" comparison. I just feel that we shouldn't go out of our way to be as confusing as possible. A dozen alternatives to "alternate" have been brought up here, and each one of them is less confusing than just using the "alternate" moniker.
'Re:Aqaraza - nice find. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the system we currently have. I dont know what the big deal is. "Destiny" is a cheesy, soapy term, not encyclopedic at all, and is based on Kurtzman's rationale behind the direction he wanted his screenplay for Star Trek to go, i.e. "destiny" and the everything-happens-for-a-reason, please-note-the-depth-of-our-intentions platitudes. Which is nice and good, but still not anything we should put in here on the Star Trek encyclopedia to refer to the new timeline created. The term should really be as objective as possible. Nearly everyone you talk to will see this as the new or alternate timeline created and not "the new Star Trek Destiny". (??). And by the way, Kurtzman is also by no means the authority on Star Trek. I bet the fans here on MA know more about Star Trek than Kurtzman and Orci combined. – Distantlycharmed 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is running in circles right now - you don't like one suggestion, I don't like another... reasons described above, for everyone to see. I don't feel like repeating them yet another time. Can we perhaps get some more opinions? -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: '"awareness" is obviously what I had in mind. The "new" characters are aware of the "old" timeline - not necessarily about each and every action, but aware enough that a reference "new->old" might turn up in some in-universe context. However, the "old" characters are definitely not aware of the "new" timeline - which means that a reference "old->new" will not turn up, and we thus don't need a in-universe-compatible name to address the "new" from an in-old-universe article.'
There's no such thing as an "in-old-universe article". There's only the "in MA's universe" point of view. MA's POV isn't that of the 23rd century of the prime timeline, it isn't even that of the 24th century of the prime timeline. It's an omniscient, in-universe perspective from no earlier than: the 32nd century of a timeline which did originate in the (prime) events of all of canon not counting those of (alternate) STXI. So "whether original-timeline characters ever know of changed-destiny events" is totally moot. The only thing that's necessary here is for MA, with our far-future, in-a-universe-which-did-originate-in-prime, perspective, to remember that we already take for granted MA's ability to be aware of realities/timelines/universes/whatever which no Prime timeline character ever would. As described by myself back in January:
..."MA's POV must be considered: Our in-universe POV permits recording events form alternate timelines [...] there are things that take place in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films which are alternate timelines but still knowable in-universe by the idealized in-universe MA archivists. If we were to decide that in-universe future lookeruppers from some specific timeline (like, let's say, the "preferred" or "standard" one) couldn't actually have knowledge of such alternate events, then we would have a lot more to fix than film 11, and we would just as well get started on that right now instead of deciding what to do once film 11 will open. I say: Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline or unknowable event, for example the one in which chronexaline is used by Janeway in 2404, or the one in which the Battle of Procyon V takes place, or the one with Na'kuhl Nazis. MA's in-universe POV currently takes for granted that future historians or researchers will be able to access information about alternate timelines (to say nothing of other ostensibly unknowable events)."
..."MA so far has assumed that, in the universe in which this copy of Memory Alpha will exist, people can have knowledge of alternate universes/timelines/whatever"
..."see MA:POV: "Memory Alpha's primary point of view is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe – an archivist at Memory Alpha, the Federation library planet. Star Trek universe articles should be written as if the described person, object, or event actually existed or occurred, exactly like in a normal encyclopedia, but with an omniscient writer. " Omniscient means what I've been saying above: These archivists can (somehow) know about other realities, but the various alternate realities are separate realities. The Battle of Procyon V did not take place in the main/preferred POV, even if some in-universe library has information about it, presented as an alternative that was learned about in some fashion or another. Maybe they'll use a version of Daniels' temporal observatory."
..."we [MA] already can see into alternate timelines/parallel universes, at least to the extent necessary to represent [in the archive] all of canon. For events in our universe, we possess the omniscience that MA:POV indicates, and for other universes/timelines, we don't, but we do indeed still know some things (somehow)."
..."Regarding MA:POV, maybe something that alludes to the temporal observatory could be stated, in order to justify the in-universe capability to see into alternate timelines and other unknowable things, like USS Voyager (mimetic) and Museum of Kyrian Heritage. So far, most of the alternate timeline/universe stuff is knowable in the main timeline just because people here witnessed them. But not all. Definitely a few alternate timelines plus a couple of other ostensibly unknowable events are already treated here as knowable by the >32nd century MA archivists. I like the idea of "seeing into" better than the idea of "making a leap" or "visiting". Though, the policy has suited everything we've done so far. I really don't know what should be changed. Maybe just some statement about what's the main universe and what's not. How about: "...but with an omniscient writer, who can see certain events from alternate timelines and parallel universes""
So, the sticking point remains: what do we call it? Well, we all agree it has to be in-universe. This precludes calling it "New Timeline", because by the time of MA's POV, it will be centuries old and also likely not the only one. I support "Alternate Reality", both because it was stated in the movie (regardless whether Uhura (alternate) was talking about HER reality or Spock (Prime)'s one - they're both alternate, from each other's perspectives), and also because I don't agree with the argument that it's too generic, not specific enough. For now it is. All we need is an encyclopedic convention to distinguish the two, not some prediction, without evidence, about how >32nd century archivists might actually call it. Until such time as we might need yet another article about yet another Kirk from yet a second alternate reality without its own obvious distinguishing name, plain old "alternate reality" is just fine. --TribbleFurSuit 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, if what Tim says above is true, and the term "alternate reality" actually is unique to STXI and not used in any other production, then, there you have it. That's our name. --TribbleFurSuit 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I admit I haven't read all of the quoted comment above, because IMO it fails relatively early in regard to what MA's POV really means. The above comment assumes that it means something in and of itself - which I don't think is the case. We didn't devise our POV as some cool gimmick that everything must adhere to just because - it's a device helping us to write a more understandable and coherent encyclopedia. If this is no longer the case, meaning that further adherance to exactly that POV would make the encyclopedia harder to read and understand, then we should amend our POV.
Please note that I'm not advocating a complete rewrite of that POV policy - just assuming that there are, in fact, two far-future points of view, would be enough. One would be the same as before, and look back on the "old timeline" events. One would be very similar, but be located in the future of our "new timeline". To mark these different POV's, we'd be using some kind of iconic representation at the top of articles - just as we're already doing for articles with a different POV (namely, the "production point of view").
To be honest, I don't even understand how we could not make this distinction - the timelines are different by design, so pretending they are not would just complicate everything. -- Cid Highwind 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem using "alternate reality" anymore, as I have not been able to come up with something better that wasn't also completely fanmade. Also, the POV should allow us to be completely omniscient and capable of seeing into the multiple timelines presented on Trek. Any limitations which would prohibit this and cause the articles to be confusing should be eliminated. If the current POV allows for this (I think it does), then great; if it doesn't, then it needs to be altered somewhat. As for treating the movie timeline as an alternate timeline as opposed to giving them "equal treatment" – the old timeline is referred to as the "prime timeline", meaning it came first. The way things our now, we're treating the old timeline as the first, the original, while the alternate reality is a branch off of that timeline. IMO, that's how it should be. By qualifying info from the movie as coming from an alternate timeline, we are not giving precedence to one timeline over the other, we are just noting that the current timeline is a split from the prime timeline. The way we're handling things now is fine, but sannse also recommended creating a separate tab within articles to account for alternate reality info, as has been done with characters on the Lost wiki. For example, we can have information on Prime Spock at Spock, while a tab at the top of the page links to a subpage for Spock/Alternate. If we do this, though, we might want to have the prime Spock info at Spock/Prime and the alternate Spock info at Spock/Alternate, to avoid the appearance of favoritism. We could also include Spock/Mirror in the bunch. Anyway, that's my view of things. Hope it all made sense. :-P --From Andoria with Love 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Editing Break Edit

I would like to add my two cents for why "composite" timeline is one of the better naming options as mentioned above.

In addition to composite being the mathematical opposite of prime, the definitions can also be extended to support this naming convention:

  • "Prime" refers to a number that, other than 1, has no factors other than itself. The main timeline that we have followed for 40+ years exists in-and-of itself without any outside influences (generally speaking).
  • "Composite" refers to a number that is made up of multiple factors. The new timeline has multiple influences shaping it, namely the arrival and interaction of Spock and Niro from the Prime Future. 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think "alternate reality" makes sense, because Uhura - who isn't even speaking from a position of authority when she says it - talks about an alternate reality. In the general, conceptual, non-specific, indefinite sense of the phrase. That's why there's been arguments over whether she even means the "Prime" timeline or *her* timeline.

For that reason, there's no way "alternate reality" can be encyclopaedic - it's too vague. *Any* timeline which isn't the timeline ("Prime") of our hypothetical MA researcher is "alternate". Quark described the Mirror universe as "the alternate universe". The no-Federation City on the Edge of Forever timeline is "alternate". The Yesterday's Enterprise timeline is "alternate". The Borgified-Earth First Contact timeline is "alternate". The "Gabriel Bell died" timeline from Past Tense is "alternate".

Do you see my point? Whatever identifier is used, it needs to be specific to the timeline created and followed in the new movie series. - SanityOrMadness talk page 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of the Alternate UniverseEdit

Since the term "alternate" was used in the film, I feel it is wise to continue using that term for Memory Alpha entries. Informally, I would suggest that we, as fans, refer to it as the "Bad Robot Timeline," in reference to JJ Abrams' production company. In addition to sounding cool, it is also immediately recognizable to fans, since we all remember seeing the Bad Robot logo in the trailers and at the beginning of the film.

I also think we should refer to it as an alternate timeline, rather than an alternate universe, so as to avoid confusion with the Mirror Universe, which is what the residents of Deep Space 9 tended to call it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neonbabyblue (talk • contribs).

...or the Mongooses, that's a good team name. "The Fighting Mongooses."

Naming - census (May 19) Edit

FWIW, I waded through the whole discussion one more time, to find out what suggestions really might be favored by a majority. To be as inclusive as possible, I (a) counted a comment as "PRO" if it was at least along the lines of "I could live with that", and (b) counted a comment as "CONTRA" if it was at least along the lines of "I really don't like that", (c) dismissed an earlier comment in favor of a later comment if a contributor changed his opinion and (d) didn't care much about slight spelling/naming variants. That way, I derived at:

  • Red Matter timeline: 5 pro, 5 contra
  • Alternate/Alternative ...: 7 pro, 9 contra
  • "NT" abbreviation: 13 pro, 4 contra (with a definite bias towards N=New, with N=Nero being second)
  • all other suggestions were considered by less than 5 contributors overall, and can probably be disregarded.

Can we perhaps conclude this somehow, in the near future? -- Cid Highwind 19:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note... Bob Orci has weighed in on the naming issue during a Q&A session. Here's the relevant quote:
TyrannicalFascist: My question is regarding naming. So the original universe is called the "Prime" timeline or universe. Have you guys come up with a name for the new reality, other than "Alternate Universe" as it's being called on Memory Alpha? Perhaps something shorter and less likely to get confused with other universes?
BobOrci: No. It is not for us to label.
The transcript of the entire session can be found at [5]. DarthXor 02:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Cause it doesnt need an elaborate label and most especially not an exotic, fan made-up label. Alternate or new timeline are the most appropriate, least "labeling" terms to use. They are objective and appropriately describe what's been going on in this movie which created a new/alternate timeline. We cant go ahead and just label universes and timelines at will because we dont like the more simple, straightforward expression. It's not "nero's timeline" and it's not "red-matter timeline" or "Abramverse" etc - it's just a new, alternate timeline. – Distantlycharmed 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"Altered" is still most accurate, since it represents reality as it was altered from prime. - Starfield 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from Orci's remarks, Distantlycharmed. What he's saying is that the writers and production team will not give the new timeline an official name because it's not their place to do so. That heavily implies that the responsibility for naming it falls on the fans. Or, to state the situation in a simplistic, Riker-esque fasion, "The ball is in our court." DarthXor 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No it doesnt. The writers dont want to give this a name and label, which doesnt mean that they are saying open up the floodgates for whatever term you wanna call it. From what MA represents, that is not very encyclopedic. I am not saying fans cannot come up with whatever terms they it in, chats at 3 am...etc...but in a Star Trek encyclopedia we dont need to honor those fan-made up, goofy, mostly exotic names - especially since there wont be much consensus. This is an alternate timeline that was created by Nero's incursion. This is how it will stick and be remembered. Everything else is frosting.– Distantlycharmed 16:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Information placement (non-naming!) Edit

I would like to see the idea of marking all articles by timeline revisited. As has been noted repeatedly above, there are several key problems involved in the current de facto system. They include:

  • The use of designators on new-timeline articles to disambiguate, but not on prime-timeline pages, elevates one timeline over another, where our policy shouldn't. (Particularly improperly, it is the largely inactive timeline which is elevated.)
  • Some articles left undesignated are native to only one universe - some, even, are native to the new universe.
  • Some articles bearing content from both universes are confused in their construction. Even if separated, which universe - if divergent - is given precedence in-article?
  • Lack of a differentiating policy causes some articles to be mis-targeted to the wrong universe when contributors don't pay close attention. These may go missed for some time if low-profile elements, or elements which enjoy poor popularity among the contributor base.--Cicero 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The "inactive" timeline, while inactive currently, was there first, and while it shouldn't be elevated over another, other timelines should be differentiated from it, and not vice versa. That's why the new movie is the one currently being disambiguated, both with qualifiers in articles and being after any references within a single article.--31dot 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should the timelines not simply be differentiated from each other, rather than all but one from that one? More practically and less philosophically, a new fan visiting the encyclopedia is likely to be looking for the new-timeline James T. Kirk or Spock, but will be directed first to the prime-timeline version of the character.

Outside of sentimental reason (which I share, but must logically place aside), how is that sensible?--Cicero 00:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still like Tim's suggestion above, that for pages like James T. Kirk that have pages in both timelines, the undisambiguated entry becomes a disambiguation page, pointing towards James T. Kirk (prime) and James T. Kirk (alternate reality), etc. There's no need to preemptively disambiguate characters who exist in only one timeline, like Gaila (Orion) or Jean-Luc Picard, but having Montgomery Scott be a disambiguation page pointing readers to Montgomery Scott (prime) or Montgomery Scott (alternate reality) makes sense. —Josiah Rowe 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
For that suggestion, we need to keep in mind that the "timeline split" is supposed to have occured in 2233. This is definitely hinted at in the movie, and confirmed by the writers. This means that pre-2233 information should not be located on an article that is distinctly "prime timeline only". If we have articles X (one timeline) and X (other timeline) (to avoid any of the discussed timeline names), then the base article X should not just be a disambiguation page, but also contain that part of information that is supposed to be true for X in both timelines.
This brings me to a completely different form of presentation. What if we didn't create completely separate articles in the first place, but instead kept the "common" information on the page itself (Montgomery Scott), moved the timeline-specific information to subpages (Montgomery Scott/one timeline, Montgomery Scott/other timeline), and then added some kind of "toggle template" to the article, so that a reader could switch between these informations on the single article? -- Cid Highwind 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
See User:Cid Highwind/timelines for a very quick&dirty mockup of the above suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think we should follow Tim's idea. It's simple and avoids timeline/reality bias. I don't really think there's a problem with a little repeated info to be honest - isn't it just a few sentences in each case? Not a big deal.– Cleanse 11:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
While I have so far managed to keep myself out of this discussion, I feel the need to point out that I really don't like cid's new proposal (sorry Cid, nothing personal). It seems to me result would messy and very inconvenient to read, explore or consult. Plus having what in practice are different (though similar) characters sharing the same page seems unintuitive to me. I't a bit like re-merging the two delta vegas, but then on the page mentioning it's not the same planet after all... By the way I don't care all that much which of the other proposals makes it but Tim's idea seems sensible and elegant -- Capricorn 14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yeah... :) In fact, the same occurred to me after further thinking about my proposal for a while. This presentation wouldn't really be intuitive - and the only work-around I could think of, using the tabview extension plus some redirect pages to still allow direct linking to both versions of the article, would only add more noise to the signal. So, consider that suggestion withdrawn.
Right now, I'd too prefer two completely separate articles, with the common information being repeated on both. -- Cid Highwind 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A good example of how muddled things are right now is the Inertial damper article. In the midst of all the prime timeline info, a tidbit about "external inertial dampeners" has been added, with the new movie as a source. The problem? We don't know if Prime starships even HAVE external inertial dampeners, just like we don't know if they have multiple warp cores or spinning phasers. A piece of information from the new alternate timeline is being applied to the Prime one without logic or justification.
The question is, would it be better to create an "alternate universe" section in the Inertial Dampeners article, or create an entirely new Inertial Dampeners (Alternate) article? I think whichever we choose can serve as a template for the rest of the articles. DarthXor 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In that specific case, we might either want to create an article External inertial dampeners and tag that one as a "new timeline" article, or alternatively, keep the info on the page it is now, but make sure that the timeline it's from is being noted - "let the reader beware" should be our guiding principle in any case. However, for different topics, there may be different ways to do this, depending on the quantity of information known from either timeline. -- Cid Highwind 11:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film) - Things to look out for during repeat watchingEdit

For those who will see the new movie more than once and can focus on some of the minutiae, here are some things to look/listen out for, so we can add new facts from the movie to the database:

  • It's only visible on screen very briefly, but maybe somebody can make out what's written on the big sign at Riverside ship yards in the scene when Kirk arrives at the yard with his motorcycle and gives it to the Shuttle technician.
    I believe it says Authorized Personnel Only. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
  • During the hearing after the Kobayashi Maru test, the names of several Starfleet Admirals can be seen on signs next to Admiral Barnett. Komack is legible and Chandra as well (with a first name I cannot remember). More names are legible, it would be cool if we could add those.
  • Several starships are mentioned when the cadets are assigned to them in the big shuttle hangar. I remember the USS Antares and USS Farragut, more names are heard though.
  • The big saucer section that the Enterprise barely manages to dive under when it arrives at Vulcan bears legible hull markings, maybe we can make out the name.

If you can think of more viewing tasks, add them here! --Jörg 06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the sign. Chandra's first name is Nensei, and Gretchen Lei is apparently another admiral (according to Shran). The original helmsman was McKenna, but I'm unsure of the doctor (something with a P, I believe).
Shran believes that Kal Penn may have made an uncredited cameo as a science division officer in a bridge scene.--Tim Thomason 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the novelisation, according to the book the Doctor is called Puri which I clearly remember being said by Spock. One more solved :-) --Jörg 07:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This might be futile until DVD capping, but there are a lot of ships with registries and names printed on them.. shuttlecraft Moore and Gilliam are two that I've picked up from the deployment scene.
  • Rank insignia! I've gotten the "main shipboard uniforms" catalogued (check out Federation Starfleet ranks (alternate 2250s) at Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek works) but did anyone notice George Kirk and Robau's sleeve stripes, or anyone on the Kelvin for that matter? They look gold but I am having a hard time figuring them out. Kirk in particular was referred to as a lieutenant but i couldn't see if it was two stripes (fitting with ENT's two-pip lieutenants) or one stripe (fitting the 2258 lieutenants). Also if anyone noticed a lieutenant junior grade on the 2258 shipboard uniforms, let me know. -- Captain MKB 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I adapted my first post slightly, the names of the Doctor and helmsman are known now, there's lettering legible on the hull of one of the dextroyed starship, maybe we can make that one out, too. --Jörg 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that saucer section says "Lowell", but I'm not 100%. I noticed the shuttlecraft Gilliam too... -- Michael Warren | Talk 07:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Robau wore two stripes. I don't know about Kirk however.--Tim Thomason 07:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+