Revert Edit

I reverted the last edit, which gave an exact distance of 5.2 ly between Bajor and Cardassia. I think this info is from the DS9TM and not canon. -- Cid Highwind 21:22, 2005 Jan 6 (CET)

I put back the distance since its from a new source but stated its non-cannon origin also made some more alterartiosn which i feel make the page more informative in general. --Kahless 01:36, 9 Jul 2005
Keep in mind that information from the Star Trek: Star Charts is considered non-canon and should be treated as such -- and not included in the main body of the article. However, since this article has had the same information removed or reverted on at least 3 different occations, I've added an apocrypha section to this as a compromise. --Alan del Beccio 06:03, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
How about we list the 2 version version and have someone the populace vote or put a debated canon disclaimer on it? AIM me at Kahlessreborn if you want to discuss this--KahlessKahless 06:13, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I dont believe this page is being handled right and wish for Cid Highwind or Alan del Beccio to contact me via the AIM adress provided --User:Kahless 06:15, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Acorrding to Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ Star Trek: Star Charts is considered under:
Items on which policy is unclear
"The relevance of the Star Fleet Technical Manual, TNG and DS9 Tech Manuals and the Star Trek Star Charts and their suitability for use in creating and contributing to articles in Memory Alpha is currently under discussion."
This does not mean its non-canon and I believe my version presents more relevent information to the page such as the planet being named Hutut which it is in the Book and in the episode (DS9: "The Homecoming") where they say the planet contains the Hutet Labor Camp which with the book calling the planet Hutet logical means thats the planets name --User:KahlessKahless 06:26, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:Gvsualan:
I hope this is the correct way to contact you I am disputing the changes to the Cardassian system page, seeing how the reason given wasn't correct for changing it back, and my wishes for a disscussion were ignored. -- Kahless 06:35, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I am not ignoring anything, nor am I going to "chat" on AIM about this. Any discussions and decisions on this must be made on the community level...hence the use of the talk page. The reason was stated as to why it was reverted when Shran reverted it, plus I mentioned it when I posted the "compromise". Besides, an apocrypha section is better than nothing at all, no? Perhaps you should look at the dozen other planet articles we have that contain information from the Star Charts, like Babel, Tellar, Andoria, Izar, Rigel X, Trill (planet). As you can see, the Star Chart information in those articles is separate from the canon content of the article. The fact that Cardassia II was called "Hutet"...which coincidently contained the Hutet labor camp, has a lot to do with the fact that the Star Charts were written long after the episode aired. Had it been written before the episode aired, it might be a more convincing argument -- as is the case with why portions of the Star Fleet Technical Manual is considered canon. But since none of it can be confirmed on screen, liberally adding information from the Star Charts doesnt "help" the article in any way; it confuses the 'truths' with the 'half-truths' and the 'no truths at all'. --Alan del Beccio 07:07, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Alright I give up on this page but since you did create that other apocrypha section could you work in the other information such as 2 asteroids belts 8 planets 4 inhabited and alike into you section because i dont know how you want it in yor section like that.Kahless 07:15, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

On one final note if you are hardlined that that particular book is non-canon you should re-move it from the Items on which policy is unclear section since it seems the debate is over. Shran reason was that it was non-canon though the canon faq does not support that. Please remove the book from the above stated section since you keep stating its non-canon status, unless this is not a general rule among all admins?Kahless 07:21, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that is sort of how things tend to work around here. Either way, I was not involved in the discussion that has the book placed in that category. But I think that it is canon in as far the information was partially written by credible sources. Other than that I'm not sure. It works well as a suppliment, I suppose, but overall it can't be taken as credibly as what was stated on screen. Anyway, the page is open, and I altered the apocrypha section into the format that it is in in the above mentioned articles referring to the Charts. Ultimately another admin with probably come in and remove it, again, but the way it is now seems to solve having to face this again in the future. --Alan del Beccio 07:30, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Entering from the left corner, AJHalliwell! (applause;screams) (sorry, felt like making a joke after the battle royal thing triggered a funny memory) Is this really important enough for a vote? I suggest keeping it the way it is now, or having an apocrypha section at the bottom with the exact info it has now. We don't need to go into detail about an apocryphal source, just a side now. A.J. Halliwell, son of Skon, son of Solkar
why cant you leave it as the admin set it? it was a compromise and i though it looked nicer than the acro thing.-Kahless 07:55, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot all about our hassle with this article until I read the talk page. I changed it back now. --Shran 08:03, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I added the non-canon tag before it, as most articles that reference the star charts either say it's non-canon, or use softer words then "States", usually "suggests". -Mask 19:12, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
To apease Mask but still remain technically corret, which is the best type of correct i changed it from saying its non-cono to debated canon, also linked to the policy page.Kahless 20:23, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the last two changes. Please read the Memory Alpha:Manual of Style, especially the section about "Background information and comments" - indentation&italicization is the preferred formatting for short comments. -- Cid Highwind 22:22, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'm okay with the change-Kahless 05:41, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
As am I Mask 07:07, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)