Changes reverted Edit
I reverted the changes from Vedek Dukat for a number of reasons.
- It was noted as "minor", yet removed the actress name and a notation as to the Memory Alpha policy regarding portions of its value as canon. Please see Help:Minor edit, where it says (in part): "A minor edit to a Memory Alpha page is generally one that makes only trivial changes such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearranging of text (without changing any of the text's content). . . . Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text."
- There was no reason given for removal of the actress name. If the name is incorrect, please so state.
- There was a cryptic note in the summary of the change of "script = canon". That is not correct per content and resource policies. Because of the numerous changes from even "final" scripts to what is actually filmed and shown on screen, scripts are a "Restricted Validity Resource" when the information comes ONLY from the script. Here, that is her name and age. Because the title of the article itself "Rose" is derived solely from a Restricted Validity Resource, and because the policy does permit such articles (unlike the old policy, which would require deletion of the article), it can be kept but has to have a non-canon notation placed on it as to the portions that are script-only.
Aholland 13:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the assessment that states that names given in script only are "not canon." There are literally scores of character articles on Memory Alpha (and in Star Trek canon) whose names were derived solely from the scripts they appeared in. The simple fact of the matter is-- there is not always an opportunity, or reason, for each and every character to introduce themselves in their role-- this is Star Trek, not the Mickey Mouse Club. That shouldn't mean they do not have names, nor the script provided names are not canon. Although I do agree that their names should be noted as not having been "spoken" or "read" on screen, I certainly don't see the need for these scores of pages to all be bound and and gagged by this *new* canon policy. In these cases, the script should be a citation, not a handicap. --Alan del Beccio 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, this article should stay as it is. I recommend that the content policy be altered in such a way that the language reflects that characters who appear in an episode, and are named behind the scenes in production materials or scipts that can be verified and annotated to the talk page, they be kept. Please, Aholland, no further reverts or other edits about this subject until there has been more discussion on the matter and the policy has been altered accordingly. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Captain M.K.B, are you suggesting that current policy be ignored simply because you do not like it? That this article is outside current policy? Why can it not be changed to match current policy and then reverted to what you like if the policy is changed? Aholland 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- As per my understanding, for something to be considered "canon", it needs to be either heard, or seen on screen. This may be an obvious statement, but please bare with me as I explain a piece of its strict validity. Canon is held to its own important standard of proof, as it is inarguable. Canon is anything which is set in stone. Spocks father is Sarek. Anything else are levels of speculation. Scripts not only change from day to day during re-writes, but from day to day on set. Words tweaked, symbolism tightened, and certainly on occasion, names changed (please notice the "background" notes on the following link: Mugato). Script information should be introduced, but should be specifically noted as being a non-canon, but a "Restricted Validity Resource". Which is exactly the policy, which in my opinion, works. Hossrex 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't "(Human)" be a better disambig? Nowhere else is the disambig "(child)" used. Nor are there any "Rose (adult)". Or you could do "Rose (Enterprise-D)" or even "Rose (civilian)", though that last one is usually used to differentiate names on okudagrams vs the real world production crew they were named after. --LauraCC (talk) 19:37, May 16, 2017 (UTC) Alternately, the flower could be put at "Rose (plant)", but since there's so many references to the flower, compared to a one-off child character, that I wouldn't recommend it. --LauraCC (talk) 15:55, May 29, 2017 (UTC)
- Her name wasn't even used in the dialog/text on screen, so it doesn't deserve prominence over the flower. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:06, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure there is an absolute need to make the move. MA:NAME states, "An article's name should be as precise and simple as possible." If we were to take that verbatim, and take the fact that a number of children were kidnapped from the Enterprise, the reason why she was kidnapped was because she was a child, who happened to be aboard the Enterprise, and what kind of child is irrelevant. So child seems to be both the simplest and most precise term, especially in the case of a character who's namesource is a script. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:03, June 19, 2017 (UTC)