Changes: Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ

Revision as of 01:01, 3 July 2013

What does "in-universe" and "supplementary" mean exactly?

Memory Alpha's point of view for content derived from the television series and the theatrical films is "in-universe", which means that the information will be written from the point of view of an archivist at the Memory Alpha library facility. This information is the total extent of the canon on the site. "Supplementary" information would be the info derived from other, Memory Alpha approved sources. "Supplementary" information will be written from a "real-world" point of view, and while it may be considered "non-canon" on this site, it does add to the overall richness of the Star Trek franchise.

Why just the TV shows and films?

Memory Alpha wants to ensure the greatest possible reliability for all readers and contributors. This means restricting the kinds of articles we accept as "in-universe" to those that are the most familiar - and for the Trek universe, that means the television series and theatrical films.

In Star Trek fandom, there are many, many differing opinions, to the point that even the term fans should use for themselves is debated. To be helpful to all fans, common ground had to be found.

What Star Trek is changes depending on who you ask, and the franchise has been controlled by a number of different people over the years, with different ideas about what is or isn't canon. The information Memory Alpha considers "in-universe" is, for the most part, what the studio considers canon. This content is also the most accessible Star Trek material, because Star Trek is primarily a television and film franchise, and it's this material that will most likely be used for future series and films.

What about The Animated Series?

According to Voyages of Imagination, the Animated Series was declared "apocryphal" by the studio in 1988 at Gene Roddenberry's request.

Gene Roddenberry said that if he had known there would be more live-action Star Trek in the future, the animated series would have been far more logical and "canonable," or he might not have produced the animated series at all.

Memory Alpha considers TAS to be too important to simply ignore though, as it was created by the same people as TOS, and is certainly not completely incompatible with the live-action shows.

With the release of The Animated Series DVD collection, in 2006, the studio reversed its decision, and included The Animated Series, even "not-appearing-in-the-show" Pavel Chekov, as part of the "canon" database at StarTrek.com. This means that according to both Memory Alpha and the studio, The Animated Series is canon.

What about conflicts and retcons?

Not everything stated in the series or films should be believed when it is not consistent with the rest of the information we have. We don't have to buy everything and make up twisted explanations where logic and common sense fail. The 79 decks of the Enterprise-A in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, for instance, are in conflict with everything else we know about refit Constitution-class starships and their layout, so that information is only noted in a "real-world" background note, instead of "in-universe".

Retroactive continuity, for example the changes introduced when a series is remastered, present a different problem from a stray, conflicting fact. For simplicity's sake, Memory Alpha uses remastered information over the original information, though both are equally valid and could be presented "in-universe".

Why don't you distinguish better what information comes from the series and films and what was made up?

For the time being, ALL information included in Memory Alpha that pertains to the Star Trek universe must be from the series and films. Speculation is limited to very obvious conclusions and always explicitly marked as such - please adhere to the systematic use of the subjunctive, of "could, would, might be" and little words like "if" or "perhaps." Unlike most other websites and especially other databases, we don't make up any information, even if this leaves wide gaps in the lists and charts.

Why is this article in past tense? The article's subject still exists!

Although it may seem odd to read that "Humans were a species" or that the "Federation was an interstellar republic", it is necessary for Memory Alpha's point of view.

Because Star Trek stories take place in many different eras, from the beginnings of life on Earth to the 29th century and beyond, and because forthcoming stories may even expand beyond that, it is important to write all articles from a single perspective: i.e. that of someone looking back at the past. This helps to keep Memory Alpha consistent and understandable. If it helps, pretend that we're writing and viewing this data archive long after the Star Trek universe as we know it has ceased to exist.

This means using the past tense in almost all instances.

Why not just use the term "canon" instead of "in-universe?"

For eight years, Memory Alpha had a Canon policy, which wasn't, for the most part, even about "canon," and the result was useless discussion after useless discussion about the term canon; about the value of canon; about the authority of Roddenberry, Okuda, Abrams, Paramount, Pocket Books, et cetera; about books which should be considered canon because they are written by Jeri Taylor; about Colonel West and the Starfleet Marines; about how this game should be canon because someone at CBS said it should; or this reference work because someone at Paramount worked on it; and so on. Since we're tired of such discussions, Memory Alpha will only present what content we decided should be presented in-universe as such.

That said, we encourage anyone to include whatever they like to their personal view of the Star Trek universe. We would never want to suggest that you should miss out on the licensed and fan-made stuff from all around the world, because it really enriches the universe. Memory Alpha isn't here to decide what is or isn't canon, we're here to help you decide that for yourself by being the common ground most, if not all, fans can agree on. Everything else is left to our imagination, and hopefully, mutual understanding.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{FAQ header}}
-<div align="center" style="font-variant:small-caps;">
-[[Memory Alpha:FAQ|FAQ Home]] | [[Memory Alpha:General FAQ|General FAQ]] | [[Memory Alpha:Contributions FAQ|Contributions FAQ]] | [[Memory Alpha:Editing FAQ|Editing FAQ]] | [[Memory Alpha:Canon policy FAQ|Canon Policy FAQ]] | [[Memory Alpha:Administration FAQ|Administration FAQ]]
-</div>
-----
-==What is "canon" exactly?==
+== What does "in-universe" and "supplementary" mean exactly? ==
+: Memory Alpha's {{ma|point of view}} for content derived from the television series and the theatrical films is "in-universe", which means that the information will be written from the point of view of an archivist at the [[Memory Alpha]] library facility. This information is the total extent of the [[canon]] on the site. "Supplementary" information would be the info derived from other, {{ma|Resource policy|Memory Alpha approved}} sources. "Supplementary" information will be written from a "real-world" point of view, and while it may be considered "non-canon" on this site, it does add to the overall richness of the ''[[Star Trek]]'' franchise.
-: There exist different definitions of what can be regarded as [[canon]]. At Memory Alpha, we always try to stick to the following, most common definition.
+== Why just the TV shows and films? ==
-:* Technically, canon is what "The Powers That Be" (those people in control of the ''Star Trek'' franchise, from the writers, to producers, to [[Viacom]] and [[Paramount Pictures]], also referred to as "TPTB") pay attention to in the making of new ''Star Trek'' episodes. Everything that was shown in a previous episode has to be canon in this respect. After all, if someone/something can be seen on screen, it should not be allowed to deny their/its existence.
+: Memory Alpha wants to ensure the greatest possible reliability for all readers and contributors. This means restricting the kinds of articles we accept as "in-universe" to those that are the most familiar - and for the ''Trek'' universe, that means the television series and theatrical films.
-:* Official publications by the Okudas, [[Rick Sternbach]], [[Herman Zimmerman]], [[Doug Drexler]] or other people directly involved in the production process may be as good as canon, since this is where the writers and producers look up the facts. Even if these books are supplemented with some information like dates or starship specs not mentioned in the show, this might be important to limit the room for speculation.
+: In ''Star Trek'' fandom, there are many, many differing opinions, to the point that even [[Trekkie|the term fans should use for themselves]] is debated. To be helpful to ''all'' fans, common ground had to be found.
-:* Still, even anything stated in the series or movies may be doubted, where it is not consistent (the 79 decks of the ''Enterprise''-A, for instance). We don't have to buy everything and make up twisted explanations where logic and common sense fail.
+: What ''Star Trek'' is changes depending on who you ask, and the franchise has been controlled by a number of different people over the years, with different ideas about what is or isn't canon. The information Memory Alpha considers "in-universe" is, for the most part, what the studio considers canon. This content is also the most accessible ''Star Trek'' material, because ''Star Trek'' is primarily a television and film franchise, and it's this material that will most likely be used for future series and films.
-:* Finally, there is the huge category of fan fiction all of which is non-canon, including all novels, games, RPGs and fan-made webpages. It is obvious that this strict definition is necessary, since Kirk would have lived around 10,000 years and Starfleet would have some 1,000,000 warships if all this fiction were "true". Even the novels and games authorized by Paramount are non-canon, considering that "authorized" merely means that a license is given to a third party which doesn't oblige Paramount to anything. For instance, although many fans accept that the ''Insurrection'' scout was imprudently christened "''Venture'' class" in a game, it will almost definitely get a different class name in the Okudas' next ''Encyclopedia'' - or, more likely, none at all.
+== What about ''The Animated Series''? ==
+: According to ''[[Voyages of Imagination]]'', the ''Animated Series'' was declared "apocryphal" by the studio in 1988 at [[Gene Roddenberry]]'s request.
+:Gene Roddenberry said that if he had known there would be more live-action ''Star Trek'' in the future, the animated series would have been far more logical and "canonable," or he might not have produced the animated series at all.
+: Memory Alpha considers TAS to be too important to simply ignore though, as it was created by the same people as TOS, and is certainly ''not'' completely incompatible with the live-action shows.
+: With the release of ''The Animated Series'' DVD collection, in 2006, the studio reversed its decision, and included ''The Animated Series'', even "not-appearing-in-the-show" {{St.com|chekov-pavel-animated-series|Pavel Chekov}}, as part of the "canon" database at [[StarTrek.com]]. This means that according to both Memory Alpha ''and'' the studio, ''The Animated Series'' is canon.
+== What about conflicts and retcons? ==
-==Why don't you distinguish better what is canon information and what was made up?==
+: Not everything stated in the series or films should be believed when it is not consistent with the rest of the information we have. We don't have to buy everything and make up twisted explanations where logic and {{ma|Use common sense|common sense}} fail. The 79 decks of the ''Enterprise''-A in ''Star Trek V: The Final Frontier'', for instance, are in conflict with everything else we know about refit ''Constitution''-class starships and their layout, so that information is only noted in a "real-world" background note, instead of "in-universe".
-: For the time being, ALL information included in Memory Alpha that pertains to the ''Star Trek'' universe must be canon. Speculation is limited to very obvious conclusions and always explicitly marked as such - please adhere to the systematic use of the subjunctive, of "could, would, might be" and little words like "if" or "perhaps." Unlike most other websites and especially many databanks, we don't make up any information, even if this leaves wide gaps in the lists and charts.
+: [[Retroactive continuity]], for example the changes introduced when a series is [[remastered]], present a different problem from a stray, conflicting fact. For simplicity's sake, Memory Alpha uses remastered information over the original information, though ''both'' are equally valid and could be presented "in-universe".
+== Why don't you distinguish better what information comes from the series and films and what was made up? ==
-==Okay, so why do you have novels and comics listed here? Those aren't canon!==
+: For the time being, ALL information included in Memory Alpha that pertains to the ''Star Trek'' universe must be from the series and films. Speculation is limited to very obvious conclusions and always explicitly marked as such - please adhere to the systematic use of the subjunctive, of "could, would, might be" and little words like "if" or "perhaps." Unlike most other websites and especially other databases, we don't make up any information, even if this leaves wide gaps in the lists and charts.
-: Although we may be restricting information about the ''Trek'' universe itself to canon for the time being, we also can't ignore the novels, comics, and other parts of the ''Trek'' franchise which have contributed to its success over the years.  Therefore, we're including lists for topics outside of the {{ma|POV}} of our canon articles (i.e. all actors, episodes, movies, novels, etc. - stuff in the real world) to create a useful reference base that we can build from in the future.
-<center>'''Lists of "non-canon" or "apocryphal" topics on Memory Alpha'''<br />
-[[novels]] - [[comics]] - [[reference works]] - [[games]] - [[collectibles]] - [[fan fiction]]</center>
+== Why is this article in past tense? The article's subject still exists! ==
-==And what about ''The Animated Series''? ==
-: ''With the release of ''The Animated Series'' DVD collection, the studio appears to have changed its stance, and is now leaning towards the animated series as part of established canon.'' [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html] [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/editorials/article/17178.html] [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/store/news/article/35135.html]
-: While TAS had originally been officially declared "apocryphal" by the studio, the studio and Memory Alpha consider it to be too important to simply ignore. TAS was created by the same people as TOS, and is certainly ''not'' completely incompatible with the live-action shows. In short, Memory Alpha considers ''The Animated Series'' to be canon.
-==Why are you so strict about "canonicity" anyway?==
-: Until Memory Alpha develops a larger article base as a reference source, we want to ensure the greatest possible reliability for all readers and contributors. This means restricting the kinds of articles we accept to those that are most familiar - and for the ''Trek'' universe, that means Roddenberry's definition of canon.
-: There are people who accept only canon &ndash; because they know the Okudas' Encyclopedia by heart or because they just don't accept anything else. On the other hand, there are the kind who stir up canon and fandom at will &ndash; because they either don't know that much and believe anything they see or read or because they don't want their creativity be limited by the strict yet contradictory canon of TPTB. We know lots of both types of fan and every shade in between. One typical situation is that some people in a message board explicitly talk about the number of nacelles on canon starships and someone throws in that the ''Federation'' class and ''Saladin'' class (from [[Franz Joseph]]'s ''Star Fleet Technical Manual'') are odd-nacelled. The result is a useless discussion about the term "canon," about the value of canon, about the authority of Roddenberry, Okuda, Paramount or [[Pocket Books]], about books which should be considered canon because they are written by Jeri Taylor, about Colonel West and the Starfleet Marines, and so on. Since we're tired of such discussions, we go with TPTB and agree with their ''definition'' of canon (but not necessarily everything they tell me), while we encourage anyone to include whatever he likes to his personal view of the ''Star Trek'' universe. We would never want to miss the fan-made stuff all around the planet because they really enrich the universe, no matter if we "believe" in them. We probably can't help those who don't even want to see anything that was not released by Paramount or the other extreme group, those who don't care about the idea of ''Star Trek'' and are turning Starfleet into a military organization with big-gunned warships. For anyone in between, canon is a common ground. Everything else is left to our imagination and tolerance or better, mutual understanding. There are always possibilities!
-==Why is this article in past tense? The article's subject still exists!==
 : Although it may seem odd to read that "Humans were a species" or that the "Federation was an interstellar republic", it is necessary for Memory Alpha's point of view.
-: Because Star Trek stories take place in many different eras, from the beginnings of life on Earth to the 29th century and beyond, and because forthcoming stories may even expand beyond that, it is important to write all articles from a single perspective: i.e. that of someone looking back at the past. This helps to keep Memory Alpha consistent and understandable. If it helps, pretend that we're writing and viewing this data archive long after the Star Trek universe as we know it has ceased to exist.
+: Because ''Star Trek'' stories take place in many different eras, from the beginnings of life on Earth to the 29th century and beyond, and because forthcoming stories may even expand beyond that, it is important to write all articles from a single perspective: i.e. that of someone looking back at the past. This helps to keep Memory Alpha consistent and understandable. If it helps, pretend that we're writing and viewing this data archive long after the ''Star Trek'' universe as we know it has ceased to exist.
+: This means using the past tense in almost all instances.
-: This means using the past tense in almost all instances. For further information, please see [[Memory Alpha:Point of view]].
-==How do I cite valid and canon resources?==
-: All "in-universe" {{Ma|POV}} articles should be cited with link to an article about its source in a '''primary resource''' (A '''valid''' series; i.e. only episodes and films verifiably from the [[TOS]], [[TAS]], [[TNG]], [[DS9]], [[VOY]], [[ENT]] or [[Star Trek films|''Star Trek'' films]] series).
-: Articles should be cited both to a '''primary resource''' and a '''secondary resource''' if the information is derived from a secondary publication or information gathering method (such as an interview or document from another source). This applies to names, spellings, words or topics not immediately discernible from the filmed version but accessible through a resource that verifies it was devised for the production itself (not after the fact), and not contradicted by more prominent information.
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
-===Article cited to a ''primary resource''===
-Blah blah, '''Blah-blah-blah''' blah blah blah blah-blah. Blah-blah, etc. ({{TOS|The Cage}})</div>
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
-===Article cited to a ''primary'' and ''secondary resource'' (small background section)===
-Blah blah, '''Blah-blah-blah''' blah blah blah blah-blah. Blah-blah, etc. ({{TOS|The Cage}})
-:''This was not in dialog or readable on screen, but the script listed the spelling and details about this topic.''</div>
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
-===Article cited to a ''primary'' and ''secondary resource'' (large background section)===
-Blah blah, '''Blah-blah-blah''' blah blah blah blah-blah. Blah-blah, etc. ({{TOS|The Cage}})
-====Background====
-This was not readable on screen, but a photographic print in the ''[[Star Trek: The Magazine|Star Trek: Blah blah-blah book]]'' shows the blah blah-blah. Blah blah, ''Blah-blah-blah'' blah blah blah blah-blah. Blah-blah, etc. </div>
-===Implicit or explicit research citation===
-It is possible to '''explicitly''' or '''implicitly''' cite a secondary source; the list of secondary sources to link to is currently expanding on Memory Alpha.
-;Implicit (No link)
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
-====Background====
-The script listed the spelling...</div>
-:Currently, MA offers no links to resources of episode scripts, but archivists who legally own scripts can attest to their content, even if there is nothing to link to. MA consensus has previously decided that reproducing entire episodic scripts on this site would be a {{ma|copyright policy}} violation.
-;Explicit (Linked)
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
-====Background====
-A photo of this starship model was published in the ''[[Star Trek Encyclopedia]]''.</div>
-:This is a Memory Alpha article about the secondary resource being cited, that we can explicitly link to.
+== Why not just use the term "canon" instead of "in-universe?" ==
-<div class="header-notice" style="text-align: left;">
+:For eight years, Memory Alpha had a Canon policy, which wasn't, for the most part, even about "canon," and the result was useless discussion after useless discussion about the term canon; about the value of canon; about the authority of Roddenberry, Okuda, Abrams, Paramount, Pocket Books, ''et cetera''; about books which should be considered canon because they are written by Jeri Taylor; about Colonel West and the Starfleet Marines; about how this game should be canon because someone at CBS said it should; or this reference work because someone at Paramount worked on it; and so on. Since we're tired of such discussions, Memory Alpha will only present what content ''we'' decided should be presented in-universe as such.
-====Background====
+: That said, we encourage anyone to include whatever they like to their personal view of the ''Star Trek'' universe. We would never want to suggest that you should miss out on the licensed and fan-made stuff from all around the world, because it really enriches the universe. Memory Alpha isn't here to decide what is or isn't canon, we're here to help ''you'' decide that for yourself by being the common ground most, if not all, fans can agree on. Everything else is left to our imagination, and hopefully, mutual understanding.
-An [http://startrek.com offsite interview] with the senior executive producer stated that the missing dialogue was 'blah-blah blah'.</div>
-:This is a non-Memory Alpha information source about the secondary resource being cited that we can explicitly link to.
-[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|FAQ, Canon policy]]
+[[Category:Memory Alpha FAQs|{{PAGENAME}}]]
-[[de:Memory Alpha:Canon-FAQ]]
-[[pl:Memory Alpha:FAQ dotyczące Kanonu]]
-[[nl:Memory Alpha:Canon beleid FAQ]]