FANDOM

Recommended LayoutYou are currently viewing Memory Alpha without recommended changes to the standard layout. To apply these changes, please click on the following Apply link - to just get rid of this notice, click on Reject. In either case, click Save on the page that follows.

Gral and Shran call a truce

Welcome!

Welcome to Memory Alpha, Sci! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!--Alan del Beccio 00:51, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Klingon chancellor Edit

I'm not sure the page move you performed with Klingon chancellor was really necessary, given the large number of links to the page. Also, simplicity is generally preferred when naming articles. See Naming conventions for more. --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It was done out of irritation with the informality of the title of the page. The full title itself is "Chancellor of the High Council of the Klingon Empire" (as established in ST6); further, the article itself is going to get a slight re-write. I also did it to help set it apart from "Andorian Chancellor," because having two nearly identically-named articles seems silly to me; "Chancellor of the Klingon Empire" (a compromise between the desired concision of article titles and the actual name of that position) and "Chancellor of the Andorian Empire" to me seem more distinct from one-another. -- Sci 8:36 30 DEC 2005 UTC

I seem to recall seeing this discussion elsewhere. Anyway, I'll check up on that. In the meantime, please try not to move the articles until we can discuss this (you may want to bring it up either in the Klingon chancellor talk page or at Ten Forward). --From Andoria with Love 08:39, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Any previous discussion relating to this topic must be a part of my imagination, because I haven't been able to find it in the Ten Forward archives or in any talk pages. However, I would still suggest bringing it up for discussion first, as making a move such as that can be considered major. --From Andoria with Love 08:49, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If the full title was established somewhere, we should use it. We can (and should) still keep the shortened "XXX chancellor" as a redirect, and even use it to link to the article in most cases. -- Cid Highwind 10:54, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Federation flag Edit

I just talked to shisma on ICQ (no, we are separate people ;-)) and he gives you permission to use and modify the flag. --Jörg 09:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Andor/Andoria Edit

I can't help but notice you just put them back together. I don't suppose you bothered to read the months of talk about the issue on the talk pages that concluded that we don't know if they are the same place before you did that? Jaf 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf

I glanced through them, but the arguments that they were separate places was absolutely ridiculous. Andor was consistently mentioned in the context of founding Federation worlds like Vulcan -- it's obvious that they're two different names for the same place. Separating them makes about as much sense as deciding that the captain of the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was James R. Kirk, a separate individual from James T. Kirk. -- Sci 01:42 11 DEC 2006 UTC
The writers didn't think they were the same place, as they created a moon and a gas giant to justify the two names. Jaf 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens did, yes. This does not give us any clue as to the intentions of the DS9 writers, who were the ones using "Andor" canonically. (The name had appeared in non-canonical novels for years beforehand in reference to the Andorian homeworld, though.) In any event, that explanation never made it onscreen, and so is itself non-canonical. Canonically, the context of the usage of "Andor" consistently refers to a major Federation planet that's considered a core world along with Vulcan -- it is almost certainly the same place as Andoria, especially considering that the names are almost identical. Heck, the ST Encyclopedia lists them as being the same place. Or are you going to argue that France and Gaul aren't the same places? Perhaps London and Londinium shouldn't be considered as linked? -- Sci 02:08 11 DEC 2006 UTC
You say that we have no clue as to the intentions of the DS9 writers, yet their intentions are your basis for claiming these are the same place? I referenced Reeves-Stevenes for this reason, we don't know. Pointing out other things that we don't know about these planet(s) does not help your case. No explanation appears on screen at all. Why are they almost certainly the same place, because the names are identical? Try London Canada and London England. As for the encyclopedia - noncanon. Got anything else? Jaf 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
I did not say that we have no clue as to the intentions of the DS9 writers. I said that the intentions of the Reeves-Stevens do not give us clues as to the intentions of the DS9 writers. You want a clue as to the intention of the DS9 writers? Look at the context of Kai Win's reference to Andor -- she lists it right along with Vulcan and Earth, the planets that traditional fandom and "Zero Hour" both listed as being amongst the founding worlds of the Federation. The ST Encyclopedia lists the two names as being for the same world -- and MA accepts other info from this non-canonical resource, so why wouldn't it accept this? By your logic, we should list "Terra" and "Earth" as being separate planets -- after all, it's never been explicitly stated on screen that they're the same world, just implied. -- Sci 06:45 11 DEC 2006 UTC

I don't even see you having an argument. We have a case where we have two diffent names, why would we possibly assume they are the same place over assuming they are different places? This has nothing to do with the importance of Andor to the Federation, they can be different places and still be important. As for Terra and Earth you can split them up if we have no evidance of them being the same, but I think Terra is a reference to Earth beyond Star Trek. Jaf 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Re: authors "allowed" to expand on canon Edit

Sci, I just wanted to let you know that you seem to have a mistaken impression of how CBS/Paramount and their licensees are allowed to interpret canon facts in novels and comics. I've talked to numerous authors who have published Star Trek books, and they have noticed that the CBS/Paramount licensing office and predecessors take little or no interest in the authors devising non-canon facts, unless it creates a problem with things that are currently being produced.

I have to emphasize that when the authors decribe how their books are edited, they are clear that Paramount takes no interest in supporting ideas and characters, or their names, as they are portrayed in the books -- except to ask that they minimize their time in the spotlight so that the "main cast" and "main ship" (the marketable commodities Paramount is promoting) are centered upon.

Saying that "the novel wouldn't be allowed to give someone a different name" because it is "edited by the studio" is a non-sequitur. The studio rarely keeps track of, or enforces, the continuity of concepts seen onscreen. They basically check the book to make sure that none of their marketable commodities (the ship itself, Archer, Tucker, etc) are defamed. Everything else is usually pushed through, no matter how contradictory. This is why novels rarely match the show's interpretations of how certain things work. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know what you've been reading, but I've been hearing the exact opposite from the actual authors and from Voyages of the Imagination. A point by point reply:
"I've talked to numerous authors who have published Star Trek books, and they have noticed that the CBS/Paramount licensing office and predecessors take little or no interest in the authors devising non-canon facts, unless it creates a problem with things that are currently being produced." Yes. Devising such non-canon facts means that you're devising something that is "apocryphal" -- CBS allows it so long as it doesn't contradict the canon. But the key phrase is "so long as it does not contradict the canon." This is an established practice; just read Paula M. Block's interview in Voyages.
"I have to emphasize that when the authors decribe how their books are edited, they are clear that Paramount takes no interest in supporting ideas and characters, or their names, as they are portrayed in the books -- except to ask that they minimize their time in the spotlight so that the "main cast" and "main ship" (the marketable commodities Paramount is promoting) are centered upon." This may have been true back in the days of Richard Arnold, but interview after interview and acknowledgment section after acknowledgment section from many authors have all made it clear that Paula at CBS (formerly Paramount) licensing reads through each book and has made enormously helpful suggestions. Further, I've never read an interview about books written in the last ten years where the authors described being asked to minimize supporting or novel-original characters -- just read through anything by Margaret Bonanon Wander, for instance, if you doubt that authors aren't allowed the freedom to give original characters the spotlight, let alone novel series such as the DS9 Relaunch, Vanguard, and New Frontier.
"Saying that "the novel wouldn't be allowed to give someone a different name" because it is "edited by the studio" is a non-sequitur." A) No, it's not; numerous interviews and acknowledgments have made it clear that Ms. Block, who is a big Trek fan herself, keeps close track of trivia and such, and her interview in Voyages makes it clear that she requires each novel to be consistent with the canon. B) I didn't say, "The novel wouldn't be allowed to give someone a different name." I said, "The novel would not have been allowed to contradict the name 'Thy'lek' if it was considered to be canonical." C) If the studio isn't making the effort to keep the novels consistent with "Thy'lek," then obviously it's not something they consider important enough to keep stories consistent with it -- and that's the definition of the canon: That which new Trek stories have to be consistent with. "The studio rarely keeps track of, or enforces, the continuity of concepts seen onscreen." Patently false; read Voyages of the Imagination for more info. "Everything else is usually pushed through, no matter how contradictory. This is why novels rarely match the show's interpretations of how certain things work." That's a very broad statement, and one I'm not sure you can back up. Obviously, many of the novels act upon interpretations of the canon that can differ from those of us fans, but that doesn't mean that it contradicts the canon itself. Let's not confuse our interpretation of the canon with what Trek's owner actually says the canon is. -- Sci 02:07 7 MARCH 2007 UTC
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.