Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → TNG-R making TNG "non-canon"? (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This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to.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.

As new TNG-R images are coming out, it appears that a number of the Okudagrams have been changed from the original TNG releases. As per what was done with TOS and the discussions in this forum about screenshots, I was under the strong impression that new things added and things changed in the TNG-R did not replace TNG, but rather enhanced, and that we'd indicate that there were alternate versions rather than making the older stuff "non-canon" and "unreferenced".

These things are canon and are referenced in the non-TNG-R versions, and I do not believe that changing the status of these items is appropriate. Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 13:38, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought is that you are correct, but I'm wondering if there are specific examples which prompted your comment here. 31dot (talk) 14:03, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Examples include: Dave Glick‎, the changes made to P. Lauritson and SS Tomobiki‎, and also ADR looping‎. I'm sure that there are more, but these are the four that jumped out at me this morning. -- sulfur (talk) 14:11, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

The matte painting of File:Starbase 515, remastered.jpg was heavily modified from the original version (seen at File:Angel I-Starbase 515-Klaestron IV-Banea surface.jpg) for the remastered "Samaritan Snare", as well. I set it up as a separate file due to the changes. - Aatrek 14:30, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with sulfur, both versions can still exist and should be mentioned in articles or get their own pages. More examples: the names of some of the comedians in "The Outrageous Okona" were changed for the remastering. The shuttle in "Samaritan Snare" also is the Einstein now. --Jörg (talk) 18:43, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
I put up a new image of the Einstein parked in the shuttlebay. - Aatrek 22:35, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
I made a big deal out of this retcon stuff some time ago, (Forum:Retcons) arguing that both the original version and the new version are both just as canon, but the consensus of everybody else at that time was that new remastered versions always overwrite previous original versions of everything when they contradict because the remastered versions are more recent additions to canon. But are you saying now that we should have two contradicting facts just stated in the article in-universe segment. For example: "The captain of the Tomobiki in 2119 was Peter Lauritson. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder") The captain of the Tomobiki in 2119 was Dave Glick. (TNG: "Up The Long Ladder" remastered)" for example? Should this policy change then be applied to TOS-R and directors cut The Motion Picture as well? --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:01, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
Particularly interesting thing about TMP is that technically speaking the most recent version of it and the only one available new (as well as being the only one in HD) is in fact the theatrical version. StalwartUK (talk) 22:01, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
I think the answer to this question needs to depend on whether the two bits of information really are contradicting each other or not. If they aren't, for example because an LCARS screen has been exchanged for another with different information (perhaps on a completely different topic), then we can use both pieces of information, pretending that both LCARS screens have been shown one after another. Similarly, in the case of the modified matte painting, we can just continue to use both, implicitly pretending that they actually show different quarters of the city and not the same with non-matching buildings. Of course, we might as well just use the better image in that case, seeing that we don't have screenshots for each and every frame of every effect shot, anyway.
So again, just like in the four year old discussion Pseudohuman mentioned, it's only the contradicting in-universe information that is problematic. If information in one shot contradicts information in another, then both bits of information can not be "true" at the same time, and we'll have to deal with that one way or another. Stepping back a bit and looking at the big picture, we have to admit that, in many cases, detail information derived from "old-TNG" LCARS screens never was meant to be visible. If such information gets replaced by more sensible information (like, for example, someones ancestor no longer being "Miss Piggy" but someone with a less strange name), I believe we should use the information that was meant to be visible, and move the other information to a background note. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:37, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
I'm for either merging the "old" pages with the "new" replacements, as in Cid's example above, and leaving a redirect, or leaving the pages more or less "as is" while changing the in universe links to the new info in relevant articles. A combination of these two might end up being the best solution, depending on the page in question. Either way, a category could be created for the old pages/redirects, as I don't think we currently have a good cat for retconed info, making this info much easier to find. - Archduk3 18:29, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Charybdis Edit

Found another notable change: File:Charybdis Mission Patch, remastered.jpg. This eliminates references forming the pages Cernan, Evans (NASA), and Schmitt, and is referenced more on Apollo program. I'm not sure how to cite this on these four affected pages. - Aatrek 18:42, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example to revisit how we actually ended up with some of the information we have: in the late 1980s, TNGs art department got a memo stating that some slightly futuristic NASA space uniform was needed for shooting. They took an Apollo XVII mission patch they had laying around, removed the recognizable word "Apollo" and then just hoped that the rest wouldn't be discernible during a short low-resolution scene. They never meant this patch to fully become canon - or else they probably would have made sure that the list of mission members on the patch actually included the one person that was seen in the episode.
Fast-forward a quarter century, and here we are. In a high-resolution re-release, the series producers made sure to remove what wasn't supposed to be visible in the first place, and we can now decide whether we want to follow the (pretty explicit) recent producer intent, or the (probably non-existing) past producer intent when it comes to canon. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 20:38, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
Only problem is that the old version was around for 25 years and some of those injokes have been known about since the first edition of the Star Trek Companion was published back in the day and thus have become ingrained in canon. I still think that giving both versions canon articles is the way to goand hurts nobody. --Jörg (talk) 20:49, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
If the information of both versions is really contradicting each other, though, it leads to an inconsistent whole - at which point we will have to decide whether clinging to now outdated anecdotes is more important than consistency of the in-universe part of the encyclopedia.
Keep in mind that complete deletion of those outdated facts wouldn't even be necessary - we could keep them in production POV articles. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:03, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
Now its only 25 years, but this was even worse with the remastered TOS: "The Ultimate Computer" for example, that retconed out the fact that Starfleet used K7-type bases as other space stations too and DY-100 class ships as drone freighters, even though fans had considered those facts as canon for 40 years. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:20, December 10, 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the original appearance of the Woden now being part of the background section or listing the new names of the captains on the relevant ship pages and just having the original names in the background section. I just don't like deleting the pages created for the old captains completely (and I don't think anyone has suggested that so far). I may be biased, though, as I literally spent hours deciphering those LCARS displays. --Jörg (talk) 11:00, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting deletion of the content. What could be done, in this specific case, is the following:
  1. Create a new page Charybdis mission patch by moving relevant content from Charybdis there.
  2. Expand the background section with a detailed comparison of the "new" and "old" patches.
  3. Merge pages Cernan, Evans (NASA), and Schmitt to that new page, leaving behind a redirect.
That way, we would keep all the information and even show more prominently the work that has been put into deciphering the "old" patch. About the only thing that would be removed (and I think it needs to, anyway) is the reference to those three guys from in-universe parts of other articles. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:41, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
I think all that would be just fine on the existing Charybdis page, personally. - Aatrek 12:16, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the article split described in step 1 should depend on the amount of actual information, and should not be attempted "just because". I assumed that, with the content from three other pages merged to it, there would be enough content to justify a separate article, though. In any case, having at least a separate section about the "Charybdis mission patch" (if not a separate article) would be nice, considering the TNG-R changes. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 13:15, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the Charybdis page, and put in merge requests on the crew pages. - Aatrek 15:16, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
A note about this might be a good idea at assignment patch, as well as a link. - Archduk3 18:29, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Got it. - Aatrek 18:47, December 11, 2012 (UTC)