Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → STO References (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This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to.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'm starting to see lots of "X can be found in STO" (or anything similar) comments popping up in articles. As sulfur pointed out while reverting an edit to Memory Alpha, pretty much every location can (most likely) be visited in the STO game. Do we really need to mention every one? Which should we mention and which shouldn't we?

I guess my other question is- How much of this game is fan-driven? I know it is an official product and they have laid down certain things as a starting point, but once it's out, doesn't it go its its own directions? (Note: I've never played a MMORPG) We shouldn't be documenting all of those, should we?--31dot 01:09, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that these references should only be added if something of note (read: scripted) happens there, much like we don't mention every book that DS9 is in, but we do mention that it was in the Millennium books, since it was destroyed and that is definitely of note. Of course, what is of note is going to very person to person, and only pre-scripted 'plot' points should be listed, since anything else is player driven (from what I know), but I think that's a good starting point on how to deal with these. - Archduk3 04:49, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
My take is similar to Archduk3's. If it's documented on their timeline (like the recent Seven of Nine edit for example), then we should note it (briefly) with a link. If it's a major event or something as such, same thing. If it's visiting somewhere, seeing something, getting a name, maybe not so much. -- sulfur 11:59, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Simple mentions ("X exists in STO.") - definitely no, let's not even start with those. "Big events" that can be cited (meaning that some reference/description of it can be found on the web) - perhaps. Even in those cases, keep in mind that there's a whole wiki dedicated to that sort of stuff, and what's important now, because the game just started, may not be as important in a year or two. Maybe putting a Memory Beta link (if it doesn't exist already) may be the better alternative in many cases. -- Cid Highwind 12:11, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Cid about the link. That should be about all that's required (there are always going to be a few exceptions). Too many items in Apocrypha are too subjective already as to what is notable enough for that section. Since STO is supposed to be the most star trek universe it stands to reason that most everything is in there thus making it unnecessary to add a statement to them all. — Morder (talk) 12:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
STO is considered a continuation of the Star Trek story by the parent company CBS. If you take the time to visit the Star Trek Online webpage and read the comments and videos posted by the development team, you will see that everything they do in the game has to be cannon checked prior to implementing it. CBS has set down guidelines for the game that must fit in with current and future plans for Star Trek, to include the movies, TV series, cannon books and others. STO is very much an official part of the Star Trek Universe, and everything that occurs in it can be considered cannon. With exception of the individual players of course. To simply toss out references to STO simply because you are not familiar with it doesn't make much sense, especially since the game has the full backing of the Star Trek franchise parent company CBS. Mikeofborg 11:36, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
Canon, not cannon. Also, MA's canon policy. - Archduk3 11:54, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't make it canon. It's a game licensed by CBS. That's it. By your logic, the novels must also be a continuation, since they are backed by the licensors. And the novels and STO have some really big irreconcilable conflicts between them. Oh, and no books are canon. -- sulfur 11:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC)