Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
For articles on certain years, do we mention only events that are specifically mentioned in canon as having taken place in that year, or can we note real-world events which relate to canonical articles? For example, could we (or should we) mention on the 1900 page that the book of The Wizard of Oz was published in that year? —Josiah Rowe 02:35, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's canonical insofar as the references establish that the book and film exist in the Star Trek universe. But I added the 1900 publication date (and the 1939 date for the film) recently — my intention was a slightly pedantic correction of the article's previous description of the book as an "early 20th century children's book" (since technically 1900 was the last year of the 19th century, not the first year of the 20th). Those dates are from the real world, and were not confirmed in Star Trek canon.
I guess I'm wondering how much information we can assume is carried over by a reference like this. We know that The Wizard of Oz exists in the Star Trek universe because Trip talks about the Emerald City and Ira Graves whistles "If I Only Had a Heart". I'd assumed that once the existence of something like this was established, we could assume that basic information like dates of publication, authorship and so forth are also the same in the Trek universe as in our own. But how far can we take this?
For the timeline articles, I notice that 19th century includes the publication of Les Misérables and the birthdate of H.G. Wells, but not (for example) the first performance of HMS Pinafore or the birthdate of W.E.B. DuBois. How do we determine what to include and what not to include? —Josiah Rowe 07:07, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
- We shouldn't take it too far. In my opinion, the more important questions is whether the information would really be useful and important for a reader that is not here to get generic information about the real world, but about Star Trek.
- Where's the "Trek importance" of Oz being published in one year or another? I guess there really is none - so we probably shouldn't try to max out our rules about what is "canon" or valid information just to fill up some articles with information that the interested reader could get via the linked Wikipedia article. -- Cid Highwind 07:59, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Also, some people have an issue with us identifying a US President by his image on the screen and assigning a birthdate to him and a period of service, since they were not mentioned on-screen. Take that into account too. -- sulfur 10:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah — I don't really understand that either. But the "Trek importance" criterion is a useful one — thanks, Cid. —Josiah Rowe 04:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I've come to think of Star Trek as having its own universe, and we're only observing the timeline. Think of it as how they get stuck in the mirror universe from "Mirror, Mirror" or the alternate reality in the 11th movie. In my opinion, our universes are essentially the same until the 1990s with the Eugenics and Biological Wars that obviously didn't happen in our universe. As far as I know, Khan Noonien Singh (TOS Space Seed, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), Edith Keeler (TOS The City on the Edge of Forever), Carl Sagan (ENT Terra Prime) and Capt. John Christopher (TOS Tomorrow is Yesterday) don't exsist in this universe.--ScottyJefferiesChekov 16:25, September 9, 2010
- I stand corrected, Josiah. Thank you and my apoligies to the Carl Sagan of our universe. --ScottyJefferiesChekov, September 10, 2010.