I move that we consider this as canon. Controversial I'm sure, but it was 'broadcast' on the official website.
I thought I'd open up the floor for debate before I write any articles about the characters.
Igotbit 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that this should be canon. However, don't let that stop you from writing up bits about the characters (etc) on this particular article. -- Sulfur 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Sulfur, it's a good article and should be here, but I don't think it should be canon just because it's on the official website. There is a lot of info about things like characters and ships there, and if one aspect was considered canon, logically, it all could be, even things which weren't intended to be. 31dot 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I really struggled trying to make this make sense! Hence why it doesn't.
Igotbit 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- This anim is signed at the end by paramount !!! because it was never broadcast on TV or Theater, it should be not canon, Curious !!! Paramount approved it so...
- Your decisions are curious, you accepted Jellyfish, spock's ship like his name because it is in the script but it is not in the movie and this anim approved by paramount is not accepted ???
- I agree a with Igobit, so and I think we must reconsider his canonicity, please let's talk again (sorry for my english, be cool with me !) C-IMZADI-4 20:04, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Your example is not the same situation. The script reference is only used to establish a name for the ship, otherwise the article would be called "Unnamed ship". "Approved by Paramount" is not the same as it being canon. Paramount also approves every book and game. That does not mean they are canon.--31dot 20:54, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok ! I understand, (I think at Spock's ship). But we accept all TAS and not few episodes !!! Can we compare this anim at TAS Is it not the same problem ? C-IMZADI-4 21:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- It is not the same problem. TAS is not just an approved product. It was an official continuation of TOS. This cartoon is just an approved product. --31dot 23:08, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok ! so it is definitively unapocryphe ??? For the script is accpeted on artciles but not all ! script = deleted scenes the both are an idea nt kept in the final movie (?)
- It's so sad for this anim... C-IMZADI-4 10:33, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
- The script is only acceptable as canon for titles. Deleted scenes may be mentioned as Background information but are not canon. This cartoon is not a deleted scene or from a script.--31dot 11:25, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
I personally view them as equally canon. The argument is that this particular cartoon didn't air on TV, but rather on StarTrek.com...I can understand why other material shouldn't be considered canon from the official website, as per the policy, but the one I don't understand is why this would be considered non-canon. It didn't air on TV, but it is part of a Star Trek series. The only problem is, it's not listed here. But that doesn't really matter much to me, because everytime a new show comes out that gets updated. But for some reason, way back in 2003 when this first aired, it wasn't added to this page. In fact we don't even have a page for the series, which was called Star Trek: Fables and Folklore. It only had one episode, but if I remember right, there was supposed to be more, but it was canceled. So I don't see why this is treated as not being canon. We should just make the series page, and the episode page, and all of the material from the episode, such as the character pages and stuff like that.--Noah Tall (talk) 00:08, March 23, 2020 (UTC)