Memory Alpha

Really existing film release dates, and a few related things

Forum page

42,246pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Really existing film release dates, and a few related things (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

I've noticed that really existing movies that were mentioned in Star Trek usually have their date of release mentioned in the main body of the article (as opposed to the background section). This happens regardless of if that date was ever stated on screen. An example would be Frankenstein, released in 1931 according to the article, even though I can't find an actual confirmation of this date within canon. Furthermore, this particular film has even spawned an entry on the page for the year 1931. This phenomenon isn't entirely unique to movies btw, often pages on stuff that really exists will have at least some very basic extrapolation that was never explicitly stated on screen but that is so central or essential about the person/city/whatever that it must admittedly have been hard to write the article while omitting this. I know that we're only supposed to add info that was explicitly stated on screen, which is why the article on Stockholm could easily contain a thousand lines of key information about the city, but in reality contains only one obscure canon mention. But can someone clarify; is there a line somewhere? I've tried to search the policy section for information, but to no avail. Saying that the Frankenstein movie was released in 1931, as opposed to "before 1152" or perhaps "the 20th century", or not mentioning the date at all, seems out of line to me. After all, we know star trek is different from our world. but still such information is widespread, and some articles would be extremely bare without such concessions. Can someone shed some light on what is and what isn't permited? -- Capricorn 03:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified my interest in this better; I've read a number of somewhat relevant discussions about how for example a picture of Clinton really implies his existence, or just says that some guy looking like him exists in some role. I'm aware there doesn't seem to be a very strong consensus about these things. But what I would like to know is, what side should I be erring on. Can I just remove such dates without protest? Or should I just ignore them for now. I'm not really interested in a complex existential discussion right now, I just want to how to deal with a number of real instances I've stumbled upon recently, and where I don't dare take action in any way because the policy seems to confusing to me. -- Capricorn 03:59, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

We've had discussions for similar data and it basically boils down to "if it's a realworld item link to wikipedia rather than expand an article full of non-star trek related stuff" and other discussions have ended with stuff like "just because bill clinton exists in the star trek universe we don't need to mention his wife, daughter, dog, brother, aunt, uncle, father, mother...". So we wouldn't need to mention Frankenstein's release date simply because it seen but only if the date itself was mentioned in canon. In that particular example (which I don't claim to know) I find it unlikely that the 1931 date was mentioned and therefore doesn't belong on this wiki unless it was mentioned by a character in the show or seen on a display. — Morder (talk) 08:39, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
See: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Douglas MacArthur for an ongoing debate on this, closely related, subject. As for this, the "realword" info should be moved to the bg notes, and the article should only mention what was in canon, like The Shadow (which I was tempted to load down with a huge bg section). That being said, a little common sense in placing more "obscure" references in the database is only going to result in a little discussion on the info in question if anyone has an issue with it. It does say to be bold for a reason. :) - Archduk3:talk 09:04, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

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.