Forum:Retcons

Forums → Ten Forward → Retcons (reply • watch)

Discussion

Retcons are really a category of their own when it comes to inconsistencies. Some retcons don't pose any problems. Minute changes in appearance of models, added detail to sets and such. There are cases where major retcons have been embraced back into continuity the "Klingon forehead problem", and "Enterprise XCV 330", and others when the earlier version simply disapears like the "TNG-trill" and the "Bonaventure C1-21" and it doesn't really conflict with the latter version even if it coexists.

As of now retcons have been treated as inconsistancies in valid sources. If both versions are as prominent the latter has prevailed as "the true one", early version is only noted in the background. If one is less prominent it has been added as a background note only. The "USS Melbourne resolution" has set a precedent where both versions are respected equally. As anyone familiar with that case knows, she was represented by two different ship classes in the show. Similar problem has surfaced in the TOS-R. Some ships are replaced. Simply ignoring the earlier version as a background note and accepting the new one without a grain of salt is to do the 40 years of history when that early version was considered the real version an injustice.

So we accept both as the real one and follow the USS Melbourne example.

Problem 1: exemplified by "Woden", "Starbase 6" and the "USS Melbourne". They have two different types or classes . People usually browse MA from categories and links. If we respect both versions do we classify these ships as undetermined, or add them to both classes simultaneously so they are easier to find. Do we essentially state they were both types simultaneously in the categories?

Problem 2: What about the articles themselves. Should it be formated in the way that the main body treats the object as if we didn't know what it looked like. And only the background section shows the contradicting images and possibly what it would mean to the in-universe if it was one or the other. In essense if the categories claim "go see this DY-100 class ship" they find an article that doesn't say we even know what the class is, in the main text.

Problem 3: If so, can the two versions establish something concrete. For example "DY-100 was still actively used in the 23rd century as an ore freighter" or "Due to retcon it is impossible to determine if DY-100 was still actively used in the 23rd century as an ore freighter" in the DY-100 page. or "K7-type deep space stations were also used as starbases" or "Due to retcon..." etc. Do we claim out loud that both version are true and establish something, and only note in the background the retcon side of matters. Do we ignore what the appearances establish all together, and only note the retcon side of matters in the background and what they might establish there as well.

A consensus must be reached as to what the policy is to deal with the current articles and for the future when other cases surface. --Pseudohuman 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at your own Talk: page, you'll see that there apparently IS a consensus. If you don't like what the consensus is, don't pretend it doesn't exist. I'm 'a move this there. TribbleFurSuit 17:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the suggestion of User:Cleanse I have opened this matter to an open discussion in the forum. So it shouldn't be moved back to my talk page. I would welcome any oppinions regarding this issue. There is a current policy in place to treat retcons as "just another inconsistency", but I would be interested to hear if everyone is fine with it and the way it denies us objectivity. I suspect the upcoming movie will retcon a lot of things established in the two original pilot episodes. As these issues always stir up discussion (in essense pointing out everyone is not fine with the "consensus") I am hoping to establish a policy that specifically addresses this issue once-and-for-all so those separate case-by-case discussions and compromises become unnecessary. --Pseudohuman 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, OK, here's an opinion: You need to acknowledge that you don't like the consensus, not pretend that we don't already have one that actually does make sense when you follow it. So far. As another user recently conceded, let's deal with the movie in a year. Whatever problems it will reveal can not be dealt with today. TribbleFurSuit 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more of the same attitude you showed during the Melbourne brouhaha: "Precedence isn't good enough, so, let's stir the cess and see if a new Policy falls out". There's tons of precedence around handling TOS-R matters. If there's an existing example that you think needs a different treatment, show it to us. Every "problem" you bring up has an answer that is beyond obvious once you accept the consensus that has been described to you. Before I describe these as they logically follow from the consensus, let me show you where your whole initial reasoning goes all wrong:

You say above "Some retcons don't pose any problems" and then "As of now retcons have been treated as inconsistancies in valid sources". The first statement is true, and that's basically what defines a Retcon. the second satatment is totally false: You are the only person who wants to treat "inconsistancies in valid sources" as Retcons. Even so, this is the way it should properly follow, NOT "Retcon treated as inconsistency", so you not only are alone in this, but you also have it backward. What you want to do is turn MA into a "Fan-Retcon" site, whereas we rightly honor deliberate Production Retcon.

On to your "Problems", which go away when you recognize the consensus that OuroborosCobra informed you of.

===Problem 1=== Not undetermined. Both categories, as long as there's not some balance-tipping canon evidence that establishes one category over the other. Hypothetical example: TOS-R updates a ship to a new class onscreen, but TNG dialogue specifically identifies that 100-year-old ship as belonging to the originally-portrayed class. Otherwise, without this balance-tipping evidence, then Yes, both categories include said item.

===Problem 2=== No, of course we don't pretend it's invisible and never seen. Yes, include in Background. Described Category problem doesn't exist.

===Problem 3=== Both versions treated as True. In absence of evidence that DY-100 was NOT a 23rd century ore freighter, there's no contradiction in your example. The expression "Retcon" never, ever belongs in an article's main text, and only rarely in Background text when the issue could not otherwise be effectively described in terms of production activity.

Now you have answers to the questions you raised. Is that enough for your satisfaction? Can you go be a productive contributor, now that it's cleared up and spelled out? There aren't any problems, and there's nothing wrong with MA's current state. When you identify a truly troublesome issue in some specific article, start by talking about it there. Don't invent Policy difficulties until it's wildly obvious to the community beyond your own workspace that one exists. TribbleFurSuit 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit: Thank you for explaining the current rationale, I'm sure it will help all contributors understand the rationale behind the current system better. I hope any further discussion on this page, if anyone feels such is warranted, would not consist of personal attack-type arguments. If no one else finds the current system as inherently non-objective, there is no point in having a discussion on this matter any further. --Pseudohuman 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with last answer by Pseudohuman, but I think it's important to add this, anyway.)

To be honest, I'm a little annoyed by the schizophrenic tendencies of this discussion right now. Just one or two days ago, you and I had a discussion on IRC, where I told you that it is very well within our existing policies to reduce one half of what is called a "retcon" situation here to background info, if that half is less prominent than the other. This is part of our policies, it is current consensus throughout the site, and it actually makes sense looking at it from our standard "in-universe" POV, where a Production POV "retcon" simply wouldn't exist. You debated that then, trying to make a point that this mustn't be the case, and in fact isn't consensus - and now, just those two days later, you're telling us that, yes, in fact, reducing one to background info has been consensus, but should not be any longer because of the "Melbourne precedent"?

If the Melbourne example isn't a case of one half being very prominent (with visible class, visible registry and known place/time of destruction) and the other half being not prominent at all, then what is? This is a pristine case of a "retcon" (if it even is that much, seeing that we didn't really knew the first class of the ship to begin with) which doesn't lead to any inconsistencies - and as such, it would have been the best to just move the "retconned" part to a background section. Instead, we now have, from the in-universe POV, a ship that is both Excelsior- and Nebula-class. I also told you about a rule that really isn't "policy" around here, but should be common sense: "Don't unnecessarily confuse readers." Do you think this solution achieves that? -- Cid Highwind 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused just reading this entire discussion. All this came from the whole Melbourne Identity crisis? Well, I'm not sure I'm particularly happy with what happened with the Melbourne article so I certainly don't think we should do the same to other articles. As Cid said, it's been our policy all this time to have less prominent "retcon" situations in the background, and it's worked pretty well so far, IMO. No need to confuse matters any further. Now, if you don't mind, I'm gonna go back to being confused. --From Andoria with Love 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the responses to this discussion too. It seems like 90% personal attack and 10% contribution... I started this discussion as an attempt to feel out if anyone else thinks we are not being objective enough in the current system. My position has always been: what ever increases objectivity is the better way to go. Question is: does everyone feel the current way is the most objective or is it too obsessed to prerationalize retcons for the reader in it's presentation of the relevant facts? Please limit your comments to this subject. --Pseudohuman 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again: Nobody seems to have any problem with the way things are done today except you. If it's an attack to say that, and if it's an attack to say that we said that, then we're guilty. If it's an attack to say that your claim "As of now retcons have been treated as inconsistancies in valid sources" is false, then I attack with "you want to treat inconsistencies as retcons". Ouch! That's gotta hurt. Furthermore: You asked some pretty specific questions and got some answers (from me, anyway). Were those responses off-limits? I didn't even know that objectivity was the subject of the conversation. I thought the subject of the conversation was "Let's reach a consensus", and in fact one already exists. Sorry for missing the point, but, it was like a trick question the way you're springing it now what you were really after. How about this: What's missing from your entire thing is a proposal. Why don't you just present a proposal that people can consider and respond to? This way it's really really clear exactly what you have in mind and you won't feel like your toes were stepped on unless someone is actually saying something mean. Look, I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. I can understand why that feels like an attack. ""Precedence isn't good enough, so, let's stir the cess and see if a new Policy falls out". OK, my words, not yours. It just really seems to me like your modus operandi is to pretend that we don't actually have practices (consensus, policy, precedence, etc.) in place for the situations you're describing. We do. They're just apparently not the practices you want to see. That's fine, please say what you want instead. Just saying that "this is broken" isn't working. TribbleFurSuit

TribbleFurSuit: The "lets reach a consensus" was an indirect response to what User:Cleanse said on my talk page. I'm sorry this led to you misinterpreting my purpose or that it seems I pretend something. I am full aware there is a practice for how both versions are included, currently in place. I fully understand it, how it works and why it's there.

This is an open discussion on what people think the Melbourne resolution should mean to other retcons. Should it increase the objectivity of MA in a way that we include both versions as equals (in the same way we now do with the Melbournes) or do we go on "pre-choosing" one over the other for the readers.

Can we please please please please keep further comments on that subject only. It is far easier for others to join the conversation when the comments only deal with the actual issue and are not filled with personal attacks. --Pseudohuman 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Pseudohuman: What I was suggesting on your talk page was if you were going to change articles to "remove retcons", you'd have to get a consensus first. I wasn't saying there was no existing consensus and we'd have to get one. Just that in order to overhual MA as you are attempting to do, you'd have to give out a proposal and gain a new consensus on it. My statement "There is not yet a consensus to do so" was referring to this, and wasn't intended to imply that a consensus supporting your view a. would be gained or b. should be gained. I just meant if you have a suggestion about MA policy, you should bring it up on the forums.

On this issue, I fully support Memory Alpha's current position. Clearly, most other users do too. As such, we should continue along it. – Cleanse 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all. I just realized the discussion was pretty much done by the time I commented. Sorry if my comments ignited any more flames. Next time I think I'll just stick to the sidelines. :/ --From Andoria with Love 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to "stick to one topic", if that chosen topic is only half the deal. If the question now is: "What should "the Melbourne resolution mean to other retcons?", I think we also need to discuss the question: "What should current consensus and existing policy for other 'retcons' mean to the 'Melbourne solution'?"

Apparently, we're now at the point where all of us recognized that there is consensus about such cases - at least I get that much from the above discussion. If there is, I maintain that it is easier to change the one example that is inconsistent with the rest, than it would be to change all the examples that are inconsistent with the one, but internally consistent with each other.

To put that back into some bigger context - we're writing an encyclopedia about a TV series, for fans of that TV series. We've chosen an "in-universe" POV to do so because that POV easily leads to consistency in many aspects, but it still is an encyclopedia written by 21st century Trek fans for 21st century Trek fans. With that in mind and in my opinion, goals of our encyclopedia-writing process should be, in that order:

1. Be as complete as possible without adding anything that is "not fact".
2. Be as "unconfusing" as possible.
3. Try to make the "in-universe" part as consistent as possible.

Having one object categorized as two different things definitely breaks rule #3. Even prominently mentioning one of those two things, if it is a)invisible, b)unmentioned in the series and c)later "retconned" (meaning "replaced with the other thing due to deliberate producer action") breaks rule #2. Mentioning that "less important" thing in a background section would not break either rule #2 or #3, and at the same time follow rule #1. -- Cid Highwind 08:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Goal 3 has the objectivity problem of inherent prerationalization when the limit is reached when it is no longer possible to be consistent. To solve this limit, rationale c) places more value on what is post-retcon than to what is pre-retcon when both versions are as visible and prominent. Confusion does indeed come from in-universe conflict, but also from the censorship measures taken to uphold goal 3 in the main text area. Goal 1 is not obtained when we are not as complete as possible. Then again, the current system is propably as far as we can go with it, as we fans are notorious for wanting everything in the trek universe to make sense. :) All though I'm pretty sure there is a policy of tolerance in valid resources towards film production capabilities. And what are most of the retcons dicussed here but retcons due to the lack of production capabilities. Is the current system tolerant in those cases? --Pseudohuman 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused again... it seems as if this discussion is actively trying to avoid spelling out its purpose. To cut through all of that, could you please clarify what exactly it is that you want to achieve with this discussion? Do you want to know if there is consensus or policy about something? Do you want existing policy or consensus to be explained to you? I think we did both already. Do you want existing policy or consenus to be changed? If so, it would really be helpful if you managed to put that into a simple suggestion: Give an example article, tell us what you'd like to change about it, and why you want to change it from what it is now... unless you can do that, I'm not really willing to continue this discussion. -- Cid Highwind 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What the production team did to the Melbourne was not a retcon. It was an inconsistency: whether deliberate or mistaken, really does not matter, in-universe. When the production team creates a story that explains why the Melbourne didn't always look the same, THAT will be a retcon. I reject most vehemently the categorization of these nits as "retcon". Klingon faces got a retcon. The Melbourne has not. TribbleFurSuit

Wikipedia:Retcon - believe it or not, it is a "retcon" according to the standard definition of "retcon". Not that it matters much - we would have had the same discussion if we had called it an "inconsistency" from the beginning. -- Cid Highwind 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say "it", you mean the Melbourne? And when you say "the standard definition", you mean "the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction"? You're saying the Melbourne was deliberately changed from one class to another? I don't buy that - if they deliberately wanted to retroactively change the Melbourne's class, or to establish a second Melbourne, they would have damn well done it good instead of trying to slip some random Excelsior model by the unsuspecting dullard fetishistic Trekkies. I also don't buy that "we would have had the same discussion if we had called it an "inconsistency" from the beginning". People's insisting on imagining that continuity existed there was what drove the creation of 2 Melbourne pages. Freeing ourselves to acknowledge that DIScontinuity happens is what allows us to enjoy the shows and movies, to say nothing of writing articles like Trill and many things related to TOS-R. TribbleFurSuit 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cid Highwind said: from the in-universe POV, a ship that is both Excelsior- and Nebula-class. I also told you about a rule that really isn't "policy" around here, but should be common sense: "Don't unnecessarily confuse readers." Do you think this solution achieves that? And Shran said: All this came from the whole Melbourne Identity crisis? Well, I'm not sure I'm particularly happy with what happened with the Melbourne article so I certainly don't think we should do the same to other articles.

Why didn't you raise your concerns at the time of that discussion then? If you were both following the discussion, and disagreed when it became apparent a consensus was close, and I specifically asked twice for someone more versed in Memory Alpha policy to come in and advise how this affects Memory Alpha as a whole, you stayed quiet? I'm utterly flabbergasted that you would stay quiet during the debate, and then complain about its resolution after the fact. The time for you to say you didn't agree was when we we'd had a preliminary consensus, and asked what the implications were. Hossrex 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hossrex, is that really you? I can't believe you're the same person who wrote this, but... OK. TribbleFurSuit 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? I counted it as a success because we found a consensus in a situation where I don't think many people expected a consensus to be found. I was proud that we'd worked through our differences, and created something everyone could agree on. Now it turns out that we didn't really find a consensus, because there were people who were clearly following the proceedings, but who didn't express their concerns. That we found a consensus is now entirely meaningless, because people didn't express themselves properly, so its just a matter of time before the whole thing fires up again. When I said: 'I mostly chalk this one up as a success because we were allowed an open forum of discussion', I didn't mean "gosh, its great that everyone just humored us, and waited until we shut up". I meant "gosh, its great that everyone was able to express themselves freely, and we still found resolution". Everyone didn't express themselves freely (although they for some reason gripe about it later), so it was a failure. If you don't care, and don't bother to weigh in on an issue, thats one thing, but if thats the decision you make, I don't understand why you would make public your discontent the very next day. Baffling. Hossrex 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't get all riled up about that - as I see it, the situation was as follows: 1. tons of replies, making the discussion run in circles and hard to follow, 2. my question for clarification, 3. more replies, more circles, 4. Alan explaining the thing to me, then posting our IRC conversation to the page, 5. more replies, more circles, 6. my IRC conversation with Pseudohuman (which is what you quote at the beginning), 7. more replies, more circles, other work for me so that I can't reply on the page immediately, 8. Sulfur resolving the situation in a fair way, rendering any further reply unnecessary, 9. someone else changing this resolution to something that doesn't make sense according to our policies, pre-existing consensus and general common sense, 10. Pseudohuman starting yet another discussion suggesting to change all our articles based on that changed resolution. It's not really as if there hasn't been any participation, so please don't make it look like that. -- Cid Highwind 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't approve of the consensus being reached, I would very much have liked to hear your reasoning. Opinions were swayed by everyone involved in that discussion, so your implication that anything you'd have said would have fallen on deaf ears is quite fallacious. We found a consensus because you didn't speak up your disagreement, and now you have a problem with the decision, and its implications regarding other articles, even though I'd specifically asked twice for someone to come into the discussion and explain these very implications. When no one replied, everyone involved assumed no one had any issues with the implication. If you had explained some of the issues regarding how this will cause difficulties for other articles, it may have changed my opinion. It isn't like I refused help. I specifically asked for it. Hossrex 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply any of that... -- Cid Highwind 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of my "trolling": It was just a big surprise to me to see you flame the Forum within hours of posting something so civil, upright and classy (and apparently all-inclusive) as wjat you did on the Melbourne page. You know what, though? I shouldn'a said it, because it wasn't about the contents of any article. Sorry.

On the subject of my "discontent": I don't have any, regarding the consensus or the way the Melbourne article was resolved. You take me wrong. My discontent is over people's inability to recognize any difference between deliberate production continuity decisions and random production artifacts. Our version/definition of "canon" is the casualty, when 2 different Melbournes are definitively said in this encyclopedia to exist. When they "retcon" it by writing a story that firmly establishes 2 Melbournes with the same registry at the same time in the same battle, the situation will be different. Until then, I believe that the right thing was done, and if you saw my arguments, I don't know how you could think otherwise. 198.49.180.40 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Retcons and inconsistencies - two completely different things

I should point this out, too: A retcon is not an inconsistency (quite the contrary), and an inconsistency is not a retcon. Retcons can always be explained in-universe from canon evidence, or it wouldn't be a retcon. Inconsistencies can never be explained in-universe from canon evidence, or it wouldn't be an inconsistency. Therefore: Retcon info belongs in main text, inconsistency info arguably belongs in Background, though I personally would lobby for the Nitpick section. TribbleFurSuit 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And policy dictates no nitpicks. And that way it shall stay.

Oh, and I removed your link to "/dev/null", because, while the joke is there, there's always the likelihood that someone'll actually create something there. And that would be even more annoying. -- Sulfur 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Proposal

Okay, apparently I was too vague in the beginning. Here is an example of what I was after, and what I thought would be a more objective practice in retcon cases, when a ship is replaced etc.

Our current practice is to write for example:

The Woden (NCC-325) was an old-style automated Federation Template:ShipType ore freighter...

Background

Originally, the Woden was a re-use of the Template:ShipClass studio model...

A proposal to improve objectivity is:

The Woden was an old-style automated Federation ore freighter...

In the original edition of "The Ultimate Computer" the Woden was a Template:ShipClass starship. In the remastered edition she was an Template:ShipType starship with the registry NCC-325.

In essense we obtain all goals set by the current practice in a non-confusing way. As the reader may not be aware of our subjective system of weighing evidence values and goals and rationales, they might get the wrong idea that the version we end up promoting in the article main text should be considered "the real one". Instead we would remain more neutral in the matter, hence more objective. Hence a better source of information. As this concerns more than just that one article, and I want to avoid edit wars, I started this discussion here to see what people think. I for one think it would be a more objective take on the material we are archiving. (Please continue discussion on the discussion-segment of this page.) --Pseudohuman 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)