m (rep) |
(rep) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I have been doing some thinking lately and weighing up the arguments for and against inclusion of the "semi-official" fanfilms like ''Star Trek: Of Gods and Men'' and the upcoming ''Star Trek: Renegades''. On the one hand, if we stick to MA policy of only including licensed canon works in the encyclopaedia, then we should completely disregard these productions and not include them in MA. And to a certain extent I agree with this. However, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned) but these "fanfilms" are probably the closest you could get to being official without actually getting the official go-ahead, my reasoning being they are produced by notable ''Star Trek'' alumni, they include notable ''Star Trek'' actors, they are professionally scripted and filmed by people who have experience in the business itself, and they utilize professionally-built sets and makeup art. Furthermore, the inclusion of these productions is possibly something that would appeal to ''Memory Alpha''{{'}}s readership, which I believe is one of our goals here; to provide articles that would appeal to the ''Star Trek'' community and that people are likely to search for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we include every ''Star Trek'' fanfilm ever made (because a lot of them are very poorly made), but should we give at least some consideration to these more "professional" films? Like I said, just putting it out there. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 00:15, February 27, 2014 (UTC) |
I have been doing some thinking lately and weighing up the arguments for and against inclusion of the "semi-official" fanfilms like ''Star Trek: Of Gods and Men'' and the upcoming ''Star Trek: Renegades''. On the one hand, if we stick to MA policy of only including licensed canon works in the encyclopaedia, then we should completely disregard these productions and not include them in MA. And to a certain extent I agree with this. However, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned) but these "fanfilms" are probably the closest you could get to being official without actually getting the official go-ahead, my reasoning being they are produced by notable ''Star Trek'' alumni, they include notable ''Star Trek'' actors, they are professionally scripted and filmed by people who have experience in the business itself, and they utilize professionally-built sets and makeup art. Furthermore, the inclusion of these productions is possibly something that would appeal to ''Memory Alpha''{{'}}s readership, which I believe is one of our goals here; to provide articles that would appeal to the ''Star Trek'' community and that people are likely to search for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we include every ''Star Trek'' fanfilm ever made (because a lot of them are very poorly made), but should we give at least some consideration to these more "professional" films? Like I said, just putting it out there. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 00:15, February 27, 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I'll throw my vote in right away. No. They're not licensed, and I don't care how professional they look. Where does the line get drawn on these? -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|talk]]) 00:51, February 27, 2014 (UTC) |
:I'll throw my vote in right away. No. They're not licensed, and I don't care how professional they look. Where does the line get drawn on these? -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|talk]]) 00:51, February 27, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::"Licensed" remains easier to define and police compared to "professional", as one is black and white and the other is {{e|Shades of Gray}}. MA is not and should not be [[w:c:stexpanded|''Star Trek'' Expanded Universe]]. That said, mentions at [[fan fiction]] could be reconsidered. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:23, February 27, 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:23, 27 February 2014
I have been doing some thinking lately and weighing up the arguments for and against inclusion of the "semi-official" fanfilms like Star Trek: Of Gods and Men and the upcoming Star Trek: Renegades. On the one hand, if we stick to MA policy of only including licensed canon works in the encyclopaedia, then we should completely disregard these productions and not include them in MA. And to a certain extent I agree with this. However, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here (I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned) but these "fanfilms" are probably the closest you could get to being official without actually getting the official go-ahead, my reasoning being they are produced by notable Star Trek alumni, they include notable Star Trek actors, they are professionally scripted and filmed by people who have experience in the business itself, and they utilize professionally-built sets and makeup art. Furthermore, the inclusion of these productions is possibly something that would appeal to Memory Alpha's readership, which I believe is one of our goals here; to provide articles that would appeal to the Star Trek community and that people are likely to search for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we include every Star Trek fanfilm ever made (because a lot of them are very poorly made), but should we give at least some consideration to these more "professional" films? Like I said, just putting it out there. --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:15, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll throw my vote in right away. No. They're not licensed, and I don't care how professional they look. Where does the line get drawn on these? -- sulfur (talk) 00:51, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
- "Licensed" remains easier to define and police compared to "professional", as one is black and white and the other is "Shades of Gray". MA is not and should not be Star Trek Expanded Universe. That said, mentions at fan fiction could be reconsidered. - Archduk3 01:23, February 27, 2014 (UTC)