Talk: Resource policy

Renaming quirk[]

Cut first name[]

The first name Richard was never mentioned in the episode. Cut scene information shouldn't make it into character names, should it?? -- Capricorn (talk) 17:53, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. *eyebrow raise*. Maybe "Richard Hill" could be a production POV redirect. --LauraCC (talk) 18:30, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

The name Richard was mentioned in the script. My understanding is that first names from the script are used as article titles (Stiles, Stocker, DeSalle). I'm putting this up for rename. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:09, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's being done now. :) --LauraCC (talk) 16:38, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, per policy. Those three other pages should also be moved backed, per the same policy, and should never have been moved in the first placed. - Archduk3 16:47, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we put these on hold, as the policy is a bit ambiguous compared to its original intent. I'm going to start a policy tweak discussion over there. So:

Short term: I'd prefer to put all those moves/reversions on hold while we look at what we REALLY want for the policy

Medium term: Sort out the policy

Longer term: Look at what needs to be resolved with any possible policy changes/confirmations

Hopefully this doesn't take too much to resolve. -- sulfur (talk) 17:29, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is now below: -- sulfur (talk) 17:35, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Restoring order[]

I was looking at the policy this morning and remembered being part of the creation of the very original policy (back when it was "MA:CANON"). The current text reads:

There are only two exceptions where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe:

1. To name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name, and
2. For dating certain events in the Star Trek universe where no "hard" date was given.

My recollection of the original discussions was that the intent was to allow the full names to come from the scripts or production sources when we either didn't have a name at all, or only had a portion of the name and ESPECIALLY when we wanted to avoid disambiguating the article title.

So, I'd like to suggest a minor alteration here to meet that very original "dark ages" intent, specifically to allow or application of such production materials (still in the accepted order listed) to enable us to avoid possible disambiguations [ie "Hill (Doctor)" vs "Richard Hill"] and give people full names in the database, especially on article titles.

Based on this, I'd like to also ask that we do not apply that clause to move (or un-move) articles until this discussion is complete.

Thoughts welcome. -- sulfur (talk) 17:35, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Many people may not be aware of a main character's scripted first name (such as DeSalle, who most would remember simply as "DeSalle") and wouldn't search for them as such. They would look for their last names. Last names, therefore, where no disambiguation page exists (as there's only one by that last name, real world or in-universe) should be maintained always as redirects, and the policy's revisions should state this.

Obviously this doesn't apply with Hill. It's worth noting that that particular page is the only hill with a bracket disambiguation. Hill itself is a redirect for "mountain". So there's no "Hill (lieutenant)", etc...--LauraCC (talk) 17:42, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, but mostly irrelevant for now, since this seems to be the edit where the "modern" wording originated. The implications and details of the original text is the question at hand. - Archduk3 17:46, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

With respect to Mr. DeSalle, using the search bar at the top, the first thing that comes up is "Vincent DeSalle". Then eventually if you have the whole "DeSalle" word typed out, it finally pushed to the redirect. With the search engine finally being halfway decent, I don't see as much of a need for the redirects. -- sulfur (talk) 17:54, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I suppose not. --LauraCC (talk) 17:58, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, the "modern" wording didn't seem to be a point of discussion beyond allowing "soft" years in, on site at least, after the change to the policy were made. I haven't had time to read everything in the archive again though, so maybe there was something about this before, or after, this point. - Archduk3 18:47, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

If we get down to the nuts and bolts of it all, these script-based given names are nothing more than superficial affectations that change nothing in the overall scheme of things. We have the ability to retain links/redirects for the scripted full names for posterity, while maintaining the article under the pure canon title DeSalle, so all in all, it's not a huge deal. As these references are again, superficial, the information can still be retained in the background information, and we are really just making a mountain out a molehill.

But since we are discussing it, I do want to bring up the case of Ms. Jana Haines, who like the aforementioned example(s), was only called by her surname in the episode, but credited as "Jana Haines" in the end credits. While I suppose you could argue that the end credits are "public resource" vs. the limited accessibility of a "script resource", either way, they are are still both being superficially named "after the fact", rather than "up front" in the episode. That may be a one off example, but it's just something else to add to the list of considerations.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 22:03, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, meant more like a comment then a vote, but tbh my preference would be to not add first names from scripts at all, even if it helps with disambiguation. At the end of the day they're not canon, and while we allow non-canon names in some cases I think that's a pretty radical thing to do, a kind of blemish on our intentions to just have canon Trek in in-universe articles. To be clear I'm not against that practice as a whole, because sometimes it just makes things enormously more easy, but I think it should be a last resort action, limited only to cases where it's absolutely necessary. And this in my mind doesn't reach that level - even a more clunky disambiguation isn't exactly the end of the world.

(but then, I am also the person that is uneasy with historical figures getting articles at their full names when only their last name was mentioned) -- Capricorn (talk) 23:41, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether or not a name is canon? A full name is always preferable to a partial name, in my opinion. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:55, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Per policy we can't introduce non-canon info in the articles. This measure doesn't quite do that, it's more of a loophole where the non-canon name is used as a convenient shorthand without us declaring it an extra bit of canon information. But on the other hand, it kinda looks like it does do that, and in my opinion that makes it inelegant as far as solutions go - even if it is something necessary, it's not a beautiful solution. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:50, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between the names they were originally meant to have, bestowed upon them by writers(like LaSalle's "Vincent"), names given by actors (such as Jae's), and names given after the fact by book authors. Those in the first category are what was intended and nothing contradicts it - nobody believes LaSalle is like Cher or Spock with only one name he's ever called by anyone. Those in the second category have more weight if someone calls them that onscreen. Those in the third are not canon.

Then you get sticky situations like Erit, but this person was only mentioned, not seen, so what name they get is not on a cast list somewhere. So we leave it there. --LauraCC (talk) 15:36, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

I think I should point out that there are a lot of characters with script-only first names or last names in their article titles. If we decide that this isn't acceptable, they'll all have to be renamed. I haven't counted them, but my guess is that there's more than 30. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:22, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Those in the first and second categories aren't canon either, they're just to some extent permitted in this policy anyway - different thing. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:55, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

So, having thought on this for a few days, I have to come down on the side of the policy as worded now, in that we shouldn't use bg sources to avoid disambiguations or fill out a part of a name that wasn't given. That said, I would support changing the current wording to allow for bg info to modify partial or assumed names for mirror or alternate reality counterparts. I'm mainly drawing the line at Richard Robau instead of R. Robau and Maximilian Forrest v. Maxwell Forrest (mirror). Credits are also generally considered to be "canon" for names, if we want that to be written in as well.

That said, if I had a better idea of the pages enforcing the policy as written would actually effect, it might lend some weight to keeping these. I can see the usefulness of emphasizing the "in-universe" (accessible) over the "canon" (accurate), but I think MA is the resource it is because we try to stick to what's on screen, even if it's a bit detrimental on the technical side. - Archduk3 20:47, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of character pages where the first name or last name comes from the script:

Albert Macklin - last name

Arik Soong --> Soong --> Soong (disambiguation)

Day Kannu --> Day (Colonel)

Eric Burton - last name (may qualify as an assumed name)

Jeff - last name

Kevin Mulkahey - last name

Kay Eaton --> Kay

Leslie Thompson - first name

Lily Sloane - last name

Magda Kovacs --> Magda

Martin Benbeck - last name

Maximilian Forrest - first name (from script = assumed name)

Miral Paris - first name in "Endgame" script and "Author, Author" as the one Tom and B'Elanna "were thinking about"; may qualify as an assumed name)

Nyota Uhura - first name (based on Nyota Uhura's given name = assumed name)

Richard Robau - first name (from other production and marketing materials, not the script = assumed name)

Ruth Bonaventure - last name

Vaatrik Pallra - first name

Willie Hawkins - last name

--NetSpiker (talk) 03:25, January 23, 2017 (UTC) -- List last updated by Gvsualan (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh, never thought of the credits as canon as opposed to be a permitted source. But in a way it kinda makes sense, it's part of the aired episode or film.

Regarding the using background sources for disambiguation purposes, the thing with that is that you then either have to always use them, or you're arbitrarily assigning characters a surname or not based on out-of-universe factors. Which given that those names are read in in-universe contexts doesn't make much sense. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:42, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

If we decide that using first and last names from the script is acceptable, Hill (Doctor) would become Richard Hill, Bobby would become Bobby Abrams and Zahra would become Zahra Jamal. If we decide it's not, 63 pages will have to be renamed. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:50, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Which would be a long and involved process, to be sure. But that's beside the point; we shouldn't just pick the easy way out because it's easy. We should pick it because it's the correct choice.

I realize that nothing anybody else does on any other wikia has anything to do with why we may opt for one option over the other, but at the very least, does anyone know how other (trying to be complete and accurate, not just some fan who tries it, gains a few users, and gets bored after a week, leaving others to continue on without expressly asking them to) wikias are handling this issue? A different perspective on this problem with rationale for why they ultimately chose to do it how they did might bring up something we can't immediately think of. --LauraCC (talk) 16:01, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

This is a wiki, which happens to be "hosted" by wikia at the moment, but it is in no way a "wikia", because that is not a thing beyond the company. Even wikia and their shills have back off from using that term, so don't invalidate yourself and your opinions anymore than you have to by using that corporate brand to identify something where there is already a perfectly good, and correct, word to use. That said, it doesn't matter what other wikis have done, because they aren't us, and aren't beholden to our policies, which is kinda the point here. Should we be doing what the policy says, or do we need to amend that to cover some of the things we have been doing instead? This issue isn't so complicated we need a second, irrelevant opinion. - Archduk3 18:00, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a correct choice or an incorrect choice in this case. It's all about personal preferences. Personally, I've never understood why a lot of fans choose to dismiss the scripts, novels, comics and games, and only focus on a tiny fraction of the Star Trek universe just because Paramount declared it canon. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:54, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Rough update[]

Since this topic is now starting to contribute heavily to the remaining "page move suggestions", in addition to it having been almost 3 months since this was last discussed, I think the clarifications to the policy should note the circumstances, whereas:

1. Names from onscreen will always take precedence;
2. Names on displays/uniforms (MACOs) will be used when not in conflict with previously established names from dialog;
3. Names from end credits will be used when no onscreen sources exist, where any additional given or surnames will be treated as if taken from onscreen, and so noted;
4. Names from scripts (deleted or otherwise) or comparable production sources will be used when no onscreen sources exist, and so noted, but the inclusion of additional given names or surnames, above and beyond #1 listed above, will be treated as extraneous, and can exist as a redirect to onscreen name, and so noted.

I don't think the MACO nametag debacle has been previously included in this discussion, but something needs to keep this ball rolling. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:49, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

As these are being worked through now, I was looking into Arik Soong because I was sure I had seen the name somewhere in relation to the one of the episodes. Turns out it wasn't from the episode or credits though, but from the CBSAA episode description for "Borderland", which I will point out does not match the Netflix description which doesn't use Arik. We haven't really addressed these summaries beyond them falling under "anything that is not the production itself" as part of supplementary home video materials. I'm not necessarily suggesting amending the policy here, but there is an argument to be made that since Soong should remain the disambiguation, as the last name is used for each generation prominently, we can meet the audience expectation for a disambiguation here by using the first name. This is, after all, a little different than it is for Stiles (Lieutenant), in that (what one would assume is) CBS's preferred method for us watching these episodes does use the first name in a manner in which you would see it before watching the episode. That said, Arik is not used in an episode and that's pretty clear cut, but the circumstances in how that name is used elsewhere I think are unique. - Archduk3 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So the curious thing about Arik Soong is that that article has been @ "Arik Soong" since day 1, which was Nov 4 2004, about 4 days after his first appearance in "Borderland" on Oct 29 2004. Since this predated our access to scripts, surely promotional information weighted heavily in this original decision, but it might be difficult to find since StarTrek.com was essentially wiped clean since that time. –Gvsualan (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I did find an article from the episode's release date in the Chicago Tribune that would seem to support my theory that Arik was how he was promoted and always intended to be, and still is, according to CBS AllAccess (which I know I'm reiterating). –Gvsualan (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

StarTrek.com seems to be pretty broken right now, but the episode synopses for the trilogy do all use his first name too, and at least one article written this year does as well, so Arik is fairly prevalent and consistent in marketing and promotional material. Assuming we want to use the name as the disambiguation, is that the line we are drawing then? Needing a disambig would seem to allow for a bunch of other unused names too. I would also assume that Erika Hernandez was named in a similar fashion as Arik Soong, so is the only difference the need for a disambig? As I see it, the unique situation with Arik is both the particular and prominent use of the Arik name and the need for a disambiguation, but is that enough to make a change and how do you write that into the policy? That said, they had three episodes to use Arik and they never did. - Archduk3 07:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A majority of the remaining names listed above all require some sort of disambiguation, a few of which will require a fair amount of creativity to sort out (i.e. Ruth), just to put your comment in perspective.

Also, I'm pretty sure you are right about Erika Hernandez, based on her the fact that article was created as that name within a week of her first appearance on ENT, it seems clear that digging into some of these histories has uncovered a few items supported by 16 years of our own oversight, that otherwise seemed fairly well supported at that time.

On one hand, looking at how some of these names were promoted to begin with, makes me want to give the old "film and television teasers, trailers, or other promotional material" a bit more weight in these instances, because that's how they sold it, in addition to the provenance, and because there's not always an opportunity for a character to make a full introduction. In some way, the weighted promotional aspect is what happened with Richard Robau, which I still think is pretty grayish, and could work with these, but on the other hand...I dunno, Nyota Uhura. –Gvsualan (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Robau was pushing it by allowing the R. to be "filled in" with other sources, and Nyota is the whole same character/different timeline thing that allows for Chekov to be the same person even though he is years younger in the alternate reality, but this would be flat out be allowing for "more name" for named characters based on promotional material. That would be changing our 2 exceptions to 3, or at least 2.75. Assuming we don't want to restrict this to only when we need a disambiguation, the new policy would be:

There are only three exceptions where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe:

1. To name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name,
2. To "complete" names for people where promotional material used a "more complete" name than what was in an episode or film, and
3. For dating certain events in the Star Trek universe where no "hard" date was given.

If we only want these for when a disambiguation is needed, that text would be:

• To "complete" names for people where a disambiguation would be needed for the name used in an episode or film while promotional material used a "more complete" name, and

I'm, of course, open to wording changes for clarity. Either way, we would have to specify episode summaries as promotional material, so we don't leave it open to any source. We would also need another template and category to keep track of these.

That said, I would like to get some more input if we're going to do this, as this is a change in policy, at least in writing if not in practice. At the very least I would like some more eyes on this to try and find loopholes. I'm also not sure if this would help with any of the pages left beyond Soong, but I suspect it won't. - Archduk3 20:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that. Official promotional material is basically saying "we approve this" from TPTB, that's next to kin as far as canon goes, or at least what we accept as "canon". –Gvsualan (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does "assumed name" mean? --NetSpiker (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

DIS Klingon ship classes[]

Per the Resource Policy, any behind-the-scenes/production material content is supposed to be relegated to an appendix or note.

Yet the Malachowski, Engle, Cardenas, etc. classes all have their own pages - despite never being named on-screen, only in production or auxiliary materials (e.g. Eaglemoss models, concept art), while the Bstlh, Daspu’, and others are relegated to either “catch—all” articles (“Unnamed Klingon ship classes”) or generically-named articles (“Klingon destroyer”), despite also having never been named on-screen.

And, per this Tweet, the Klingon class names are just as “official” as the UFP ships.

How come they aren’t in their own pages under their class names?

—WTRiker (talk) 03:49, January 29, 2019 (UTC)

The thing naming them wasn't, or still isn't, released when those were created, just like the Federation ships had generic type names. Also, no one has gotten around to it yet. - Archduk3 05:39, January 29, 2019 (UTC)

So, if I made a Sech class article, I wouldn’t get yelled at? —-WTRiker (talk) 20:53, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Provided it has more than just the Eaglemoss reference, it should be fine. Eaglemoss is not a reference unto itself. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 21:54, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Since EM and Trek Online are so far the only material to use the class names, what if I paired EM with the aforementioned Tweet that all but explicitly confirms the class names are official? —WTRiker (talk) 22:19, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the new crew, but provided that guy works on Discovery that does make the names released by Eaglemoss before his tweet confirmed by a staff member, so number 2 on the production and reference materials list. STO isn't a resource we can use names from. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 22:27, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

In December, he was promoted from Vice President, Product Development at CBS Consumer Products to Vice President Star Trek Brand Management at CBS Studios, Global Franchise Management. So he is pretty much as “word of God” as can be. And 'Aviatrix' is DSC’s go-to Klingon translator. —WTRiker (talk) 22:51, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, he states the creator of the names to be Kirsten Beyer, who most definitely counts as a production source. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:50, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

That too! —WTRiker (talk) 23:59, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

All this, too, kind of opens up a larger discussion over the officialness/MA-worthiness if the novels. Per both Ted Sullivan and John Van Citters, the writer’s room treats the novels as canon. Especially since, as noted in the linked article: “One of the keys to this is that Discovery staff writer Kirsten Beyer is involved with the novels and co-writing the comics.”

Ted said it’s all considered canon by the writing staff until and unless an imperative need to override the novel content arises; too, JVC said that the novels are collaborated on in such a way as to *prevent* the writers from overriding the content of the novels. —WTRiker (talk) 23:59, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Remember that the writers of the new films treated the associated comics as "canon". Until they would need to override them. Which makes them less than canon by definition. Also, it doesn't mean that they are as per MA. -- sulfur (talk) 00:35, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. Would it be permissible to create Klingon ship class articles using these names, now that we have confirmation from a CBS executive that they originated from a DIS production source? -- UncertainError (talk) 01:36, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

What they said. —WTRiker (talk) 02:00, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Maintain your indent.

Everyone above the show runner or whatever position Roddenberry held on TOS and TNG and Berman held on the rest is not "directly" involved with the production and is not a source for this type of info, due to conflicts of interest and lack of control over the actual content. A writer saying these are the names they will use if it comes up is #2 on the list while some executive who may be "god", but will never hold the pen writing the "bible" and is therefor not directly involved in the production would be most likely only a #3. Names for unnamed things should only ever come from #1 and #2.

As for the rest, what executives in "charge" of Star Trek say and the history of what they have said over the last 50+ years is the best argument for not giving what they say much credence. Since DIS is actively retconning things, I would be inclined to disregard everything everyone involved had to say, since if they change their mind later whats "just another" retcon, but the policy is the policy. - Archduk3 06:48, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

So, I'm getting a "yes it's okay" from this. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:57, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Provided the citation is correct, you would be right. - Archduk3 23:26, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

I'll see about getting started on it tonight! And sorry about the indent. Not 100% on MA formatting coding. —WTRiker (talk) 02:06, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Finally got around to it. Prototyped it with the Klingon destroyer/Qugh class. --WTRiker (talk) 04:41, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

I take it my prototype using the Qugh was okay? —WTRiker (talk) 17:26, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

It should look like any other page. Just refer to the SF pages, like Malachowski class. (Also, please keep adding your new comments on the bottom of the thread.) --Alan (talk) 21:24, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that! And gotcha. But, since it’s not been reverted, I take it it’s cleared? —WTRiker (talk) 02:43, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not up to date on this topic, mostly because think DIS careened Klingons and everything about them into the dumpster, but do the Batlh class and DaSpu' class names qualify to be split off, per the topic of this discussion, or are their sources not legitimate enough? --Gvsualan (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The names have been widely accepted - by Eaglemoss and Star Trek Online, two close-to-production entities - so I think they are worthwhile to have their own articles. --WTRiker (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

But to know that that is a verified fact somehow, is really what is important here. Like how the above comment states: "he states the creator of the names to be Kirsten Beyer, who most definitely counts as a production source." Is it confirmed she names these too, and can it be cited? --Gvsualan (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Social media[]

So, the main issue so far with "official" social media accounts is generally they are opaque, in that we don't really know where the content is coming from. That has put them in the unenviable position of possibly being in multiple tiers of our accepted background sources, which is a problem if you want to use any of that information beyond just background. Social media accounts are also not open to everyone, in that not all of them are free to view without signing up, and not all content in the social media channel comes from the actual account holder. Since this has come to head, we need to make some decisions in regards to how this content is handled.

Generally, I would say anything coming directly from the account is promotional material (tier 1), but that may not always be the true now or going forward. Retweets on twitter I wouldn't even consider to be "official non-promotional material" (tier 3) and shouldn't be included at all. You can see how stuff from one outlet can be multiple things. - Archduk3 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect much of a response to your comments because few completely grasp our tier system, but if we're talking about the new cgi graphics of ships, I tend to think that cgi graphics can really only come from the offical, if not, original source.

In the ENT-era past, cgi animators were really the only ones who had the means, access to, or possession of much of the original source material, and really were the only ones capable of creating these type of "promotional" items. Based on the handling of the same info come DIS Season 1, that rationale still seemed to hold water. When Discovery Season 1 came out, information about those new cgi ships was relayed through unofficial channels briefly, before being slowly released publicly by the original source, when paramount gave the ok. The same information eventually trickled onto startrek.com, and I think twitter, and soon came into general acceptance.

So if it was a general blurb of text, I'd be less hesitant to defend such things, as compared to something visually "prepared". Yes, if it directly came from CeeGee I. Artist himself, that would be great, but knowing this type of information can only get from point A to point B through a very limited number of avenues, the social media source of conveyance in dispute is apparently the one they've chose to use, which, even if questionably valid, the content and associated information tends to always prove to be legit.

Finally, with regards to the limited accessability of these materials, much the same can be said of a lot of things we use for sources already, the biggest being personal contacts with production types (the validity of which vanishes with the contributor who is in possession of that source material), and less so, information obtained through items sold through clearinghouse auctions, out of print reference books or magazines, defunct websites, or scripts and other production documents not held in the public realm. –Gvsualan (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This just dawned on me, regarding: "Social media accounts are also not open to everyone, in that not all of them are free to view without signing up"... Neither is access to viewing these new series/shows on CBS All Access that these "not free to view" information is being provided. –Gvsualan (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting there is an actionable issue with limited access, as we cite things all the time that not everyone will have access to, I'm just saying I don't know how different things may be between instagram and twitter, for example. Is the same content on both sites, or are things exclusive to one or the other. You can't view instagram without signing up, and twitter limits your access without a sign up. I also don't know how long anything posted will stay up for. We link to twitter more and more, but tweets can be deleted and I don't know if at some point tweets will essentially delete themselves. Having a broken link is still good to show there was a cite at some point, but do we want to internalize some of this info when we can if were going to use it? We're having the issue with article names from old promotional text or previews, so let's try and get in front of it and save future us the time and effort.

I mean, what's the point of uploading this but not the whole image? Having the whole image is much more helpful overall, and this crops out the information that is arguably most important to this discussion. We can crop stuff out like this later if we want, but we can't add in the bits that were cropped out. Are we fine with just a link for where a name came from or do we want the image too? Is there a difference between an image and text? Are we going to believe a tweet with concept art but not text? Do we need to get an image of a text tweet, as we have in some cases before?

The main thing I'm looking for is an answer to what wording we want for any change. Clearly some change is needed. Do we just want to add "social media" to tier 1, or do we want to parse that content to exclude some stuff (retweets, text, etc.) or put that stuff in another tier, or do we want to add social media somewhere else entirely? As I've said before, I think most of the content of is fine for us to use provided we have reasonably clear instructions on what we want. Also, if we did that we would be trusting social media accounts more than the official website. I'm fine with that, since clearly more time and money is put into the former, but some people might wonder why we have a problem with the latter. - Archduk3 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts: When we say "social media", do we want to limit what social media is acceptable? And when I say "what", I more mean... which social media accounts, such as "startrekcbs" (for example). It might be best to track these by quality/calibre, but not necessarily listing them all in the resource policy directly, but possibly tracking them elsewhere, as to why they are considered an acceptable resource (ala "blue tick" on Twitter).

Related thought: Wookieepedia has a style of tracking their offsite references with hard links to the internet archive, including tracking things like archivedate and a direct link to the archived item. For tweets, part of the practice is to actually get a screenshot of the tweet, upload it to their site, and that becomes part of the twitter link. This might be something that is worth looking into as we go down this path. -- Sulfur (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Could we not somehow simply archive these revant social media images, through screenshots/text archives, just like we did with last generation's Memory Alpha:AOL chats? Quite frankly, we already include a large collection of images directly lifted from official social media sites as it is, and browsing through the ~900 images posted to the official Star Trek on CBS All Access' facebook account, which really is about as official as we can get in these matters, there are a few of interest, most specifically their two most recent, which pertain to this discussion, that really should easily satisfy the tier one criteria, even just by replacing cropped image with the whole image. It's still {{image star trek}} and I would even consider its presentation comparable to being a digital page out of a DIS reference book. –Gvsualan (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal of addition of third exception to in-universe resources[]

Currently in this section of the policy it states:

I would like to suggest adding a third exception to this vis a vis gender when a promotional source supports what is seen on screen. For example, CBS released a press release [1] back in September 2020 that was replicated on StarTrek.com [2] at more or less the same time.

So, for two example uses from that press release above:

• Adira Tal would be listed as non-binary in their article's opening of the in-universe segment because it is in the press release and clearly supported on screen with the they/them pronouns quote.
• Gray Tal would not be listed as transgender in the in-universe portion of the article because there is nothing yet to support it on screen. It would continue to be listed and discussed in the appendicies portion. If the on screen supports it in some way in season 4 without explicitly saying "transgender" (or alternative wording), then this exception clause would support the addition to the in-universe segment of the article.

-- Sulfur (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The first question would have to be: how is this any different from what we are already doing, and in that case why is it an exception instead of a clarification? - Archduk3 00:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Simple. The clarifications in that paragraph are for visual materials only. The exceptions (as noted above) are "where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe."

This would allow expansions in that sense.

My suggested wording for #3 is:

• For adding personal details not covered by the exceptions above (such as species, gender, etc) for characters seen or referred to on-screen where the production material supports and enhances what is presented on-screen.

-- Sulfur (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that is any different than what we have been doing, and the wording you're suggesting I think is too narrow for the myriad of issues this should address. That said, I would suggest this instead:

This combines the clarification here and the changes under discussion above to what material can be used for names. Since both deal directly with the same wording, it made sense to address them both. If you don't want to deal with the naming stuff right now though, just remove that point. I think adding a brief explanation for the exceptions and spelling out why any exceptions are allowed up front is important. This also removes some of the language that causes problems, like "hard" and "soft" (canon) and that there are only a certain number of exceptions. We do allow case-by-case exceptions when there is an overriding consensus to do so, like with retcons/inconsistencies, common sense issues, starships named Melbourne, etc. This also allows for options when something like the Culluh problem happens, because all arguments either way on that aside it isn't a good look if we keep pestering production people for every time something like this comes up. I would rather show them a solution/consensus and ask for their opinion on that rather than a "can you tell us your intentions a quarter of a century ago about this?".

Instead of tacking on another (two) exception(s), I think reworking the whole section to address the issues we have had with this is a better overall solution. - Archduk3

Your rewrite looks good to me, and I like the additions to the examples in #4. I can go either way with #2, so whatever everyone else prefers is ok with me. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also good with the rewrite, and neutral on #2 (the complete name thing). If we do allow it, we need to be vigilant as to categories/etc to indicate sourcing. I made one minor change to separate the last sentence out to make it more obvious. -- Sulfur (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Authorized vs. Unauthorized non-fiction[]

One of the examples of an "authorized non-fiction reference work" (under Supplementary resources, #3) is Delta Quadrant, which notes on the cover that it is unofficial (unauthorized). In fact we have a category of 47 (ba dum tss) unauthorized reference works that, sampling a few, seem to be cited in articles' background sections. (i.e. Lost Voyages of Trek and The Next Generation on Regulan bloodworm.) Is this something that should be removed from bg sections, or should "authorized" be rephrased in the policy, or am I misinterpreting something? - AJHalliwell (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was a discussion specificly about Delta Quadrant, but I'm not sure where right now. If I remember it correctly though, the idea was to allow that based on the authors and interviews, since they would fall under other parts of the policy otherwise. I would think "authorized" is supposed to be a stand in for "authoritative" if I'm right, but some better wording there would help. - Archduk3 02:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Found Forum:Unauthorized book resources, particularly "Delta Quadrant"; would changing "authorized" to "credible" water it down too far? Or add "...or unofficial publications based off reliable behind-the-scenes or production material (such as Delta Quadrant)." ? Of course saying "reliable" or "credible" doesn't define what is and what isn't, and I acknowledge there are some books (or other works) that we don't want filling background sections. - AJHalliwell (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, unauthorized/unofficial seems more like an endorsement by TPTB, than an interpretation of legitimacy. If it is constructed based on research, interviews, or other first and second hand verifiable accounts, if perhaps only seemingly, it should be just as valid as any other website/magazine interview, biography, etc. that contains the same pertinent information. One might suppose that Enterprise Logs, Starlog-type magazines, or even TV Guide articles are just as unauthorized or unofficial, to some degree, but they're just as fair to use. –Gvsualan (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Text that isn't legible onscreen[]

I propose to change Memory Alpha's canon policy so that text that isn't legible onscreen is no longer considered canon.

See Talk:Joe Carey#He is dead. for the reason why. In short, treating illegible text as canon causes major continuity errors (unexplained resurrections) that otherwise wouldn't exist. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)