Startrek.com canon?[]
Is Startrek.com actually canon as this article claims? Or just a b level source like novels (the database seems to contain lore outside of the show from both books and its own invented stuff, and sometimes contradicted by shows itself?). Is there something that claimants canon status? or should that be explained better? Baggins (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- "this article"? Which article is that?
- And no, StarTrek.com isn't canon. It's all over the map in terms of content usefulness. -- Sulfur (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks that’s what I was thinking… in this FAQ it states:
- With the release of The Animated Series DVD collection, in 2006, the studio reversed its decision, and included The Animated Series, even "not-appearing-in-the-show" Pavel Chekov, as part of the "canon" database at StarTrek.com. [1]This means that according to both Memory Alpha and the studio, The Animated Series is canon.
This seems strangely worded and gives undue relevance to database that is more or just a fun beta resource similar to the Star Trek encyclopedia which the FAQ says isn’t canon… while the Animated Series page itself calls the animated series “questionable canon” while discussing only elements have been integrated (not necessarily the entire work).
The wiki is good for taking measured approach and still listing info from the series since it was a show though. But also giving impression it’s reliability may not be 100%. So my issue isn’t how wiki approaches the animated series, more a question claim that startrek.com/database is itself canon.Baggins (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's a reason why the word 'canon' is put into quotes in the FAQ... Haha.
- If you read the section on the "questionable canon", it's referring to how the franchise has viewed it over the years. The lead of the second paragraph in that should make it clear how MA treats this series: "Despite this request, Memory Alpha recognizes The Animated Series as a valid resource." -- Sulfur (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's more confusing because the 'canon' page claims that it is canon.... using the references made to the TAS in non-canon website as proof that it is 'canon'...
- In 1988, Paramount Pictures removed Star Trek: The Animated Series (aired 1973–1974) from canon. However, the definition of Star Trek canon as encompassing all released TV series and films has been generally accepted since TAS was first released on DVD; the studio officially changed its removal of TAS from canon by listing the animated series as a part of established canon in its database at StarTrek.com. [1] [2](X) [3](X) [4](X)
It's as if various pages the faq, canon page, and a few others are at opposing views...Baggins (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Think of things this way... MA doesn't decide what is canon. We document what's shown on screen. This is why we have a "content policy" rather than a "canon policy". Unlike the Star Wars universe (for example), there's not really hard and fast definitions of what "canon" is. In Star Trek, there's been occasion that a book or two has been considered "canon" by the franchise... until it got superseded. Ditto for a video game, until the person that was looking after the franchise left the franchise. Star Trek canon is pretty messy all things considered. :) -- Sulfur (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)