Talk: Canon

Merge from Fanon

Vfd for Fanon

Fanon

Not sure what this is doing on MA -- surely the definition of what is not canon should go under canon? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 09:41, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Merge with canon. The nature of fanon is important when deciding what is and is not canon, especially when it comes to myths like Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Alex Peckover 10:23, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fannon is not cannon. Tobyk777 19:28, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Alan del Beccio 00:52, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with just deleting this. It doesn't need a seperate article, but it is important to discuss the areas where fans get confused or get ideas in to their heads that aren't based in canon. The most obvious examples being Spock as the first Vulcan in Starfleet and some of the information about various classes of Starship which seem to have been plucked out of non-canon books or fan websites. Alex Peckover 06:24, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  - I have to agree with Alex; I think there can be some potential in this article (or concept) given the fact that we've deleted quite a few fan articles and reverted some fan content inserted into otherwise valid articles. Clearly, it's a subject of some importance if we're dealing with it so often. I would support a merge with canon and redirect there for now. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:03, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
merged --Alan del Beccio 18:45, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Removed from "External links" section

The Non-canon Star Trek Wiki (a.k.a. Memory Beta)
The Star Trek Expanded Wiki (fan fiction, fan movies, other fanon)
Template:Brokenlink (Klingon-language wiki)

I removed those three. How exactly are those links related to the topic "canon" instead of just some links to other wikis that belong on some link list, if they belong at all? -- Cid Highwind 22:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I put them there... all are links to non-canon Star Trek sites, not just some random links. They're related to the topic of "canon" precisely because they're non-canon. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand... sheesh. They direct people interested in other, non-canon information to the appropriate places (and away from MA) -- Renegade54 23:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it other than the Memory Beta part, as that's an informal title and no formal affiliation is in place. --Broik 23:44, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know about the "expanded universe" Wiki considering its rule of thumb seems to basically be "anything you make up is canon here", and the Klingon Wiki is going to be shut down... The non-canon Wiki one is fine though. --Broik 23:47, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

My point is: Why should a website that collects Star Trek facts that happen to be "non-canon" be linked from a production-point-of-view article that details the term "canon" as percieved by the producers? I'm not saying that these sites shouldn't be linked from any page on Memory Alpha, I just don't see the specific connection between them and exactly this article (apart from the fact that both contain the word "canon" in their description). And, well, a real-world encyclopedia that happens to be written in Klingon doesn't really have to do with anything... -- Cid Highwind 23:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps these links could even be added to some other articles dealing with non-canon -- for example, the novels, comics and games articles could link to the offsite index of the non-canon wiki -- after all, those are the articles that deal more directly with that site's charter (its a site made to catalog novel, comic and game data). Same for the article fan fiction and its corresponding wiki. The other one is a Klingon version of a site we link to, so perhaps it goes best in the Klingonese page. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 00:06, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Roddenberry Canon

How about having a "Roddenberry canon" article? I found the term at Wikipedia[1], though I haven't searched to see whether it is in widespread useage. I think it would be useful to see just what the Great Bird felt was officially part of his vision, and how big a slice of Trek that comprises. Maybe include some comments as to why he objected to TAS or other story elements. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply add that information to the Gene Roddenberry article, if there's a reliable source for that sort of info? -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

His main article is already lengthy without this tangent. Incidentally, here's a relevant link on his thoughts on canon. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Roddenberry will we use for this canon? TOS/TAS Gene, at the top of his game? Movie era Gene, bitter after his round and round political infights with the studio? TNG Gene, burned out, drugged up, and (by all accounts) heavily influenced by his lawyer (Mazlish) and Richard "Trek's own Anti-Christ" Arnold?

Apologies for the strong emotion, but this is just a BAD idea, IMO...Capt Christopher Donovan 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Google turns up a number of results for Roddenberry canon. I'd venture to say that, whatever the article's eventual content, it is a legitimate and entirely appropriate (contraversiality not withstanding) subject for consideration. -- StAkAr Karnak 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 380 Google hits, apparently all fan sites, some even about Andromeda, a reliable source for the term "Roddenberry canon". Also, I wouldn't call another fan-site citing people that in turn sometimes cite Roddenberry a reliable source for what exactly comprises this so-called "Roddenberry canon". We're not a site to reiterate fandom opinion, so we'd need some official source before we start adding that information to some article here - and if we do, I'd still prefer it added to the Roddenberry article, because that one really isn't too "lengthy" at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Couple Questions

I might sound like a fool here, and someone might explain it to me in a way that it makes sense to me, but here we go. What does this page say, that couldn't be said with the canon policy page, or Vis versa? I am simply wondering this, as this page seems to mention the differences between canon, and non canon, while the canon policy page seems to do that, and take it step further to state what information to use to post the articles. In any case, it looks to me as if this page could be combined with the policy page, if not...

As a separate page, and written with a real world pov, even being of an importance to MA, being linked to several project pages, shouldn't this page, in turn be a project page? IE, named "Memory Alpha:Canon"? --Terran Officer 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Namespace

Does this "real world" entry, mostly containing dictionary type wikipedia information and is somewhat redundant to what is already mentioned in the Canon policy and FAQ, really need to be monopolizing the main "canon" namespace? Albeit referenced in small quantities, the term (not to be confused with cannon) also has "in-universe" meaning, having been mentioned in "What You Leave Behind", "Prime Factors" and "Demon". --Alan 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We could move relevant real world info to something like Star Trek canon, make this in universe, and include disambig links at the top of main namespace articles. Or we could get rid of all of this content, replace it with the in universe, and include a disambig link at the top to the article in the "Memory Alpha" namespace. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what exactly is said about Canon in those episodes... does it warrant its own in-universe article, and do you plan to write it?

If "no", then just keep this here - if "yes", then the in-universe stuff should get the simple title, and the "real world" stuff the disambiguation. Cobras first suggestion sounds good, in that case - I'd prefer not to have that stuff located at a Memory Alpha: namespace entry, though, because that should only be project-related stuff. -- Cid Highwind 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, not terribly much, but triviality didn't seem to matter much in prioritizing The Cage over "The Cage". Anyway, if memory serves, one of the canon references may actually be listed under Canon of Laws, in reference to a specific species/govn't. The other is someone, Sisko maybe, saying "not to canonize me yet". The third was about some writer of Talaxian canon. I also believe there will be one for Canon (per an ad seen in a time travel scenario), which makes two "in-universe" meanings for this namespace. My only other suggestion is to disperse the information on this page, removing redundancies already mentioned on policy pages, as I mentioned above, or to actually take the relevant cited Trek+canon references from the article and simply move it to the background... --Alan 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)