We definitely need some history here. I know virtually nothing about TAS - I have never seen any episodes, I don't even know if it's considered canon. This page is in desperate need of help. -- Etoile 15:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it's here, it's canon. You might want to check out the individual episode pages to actually get any information. Otherwise, check out Unofficial Star Trek: TAS Website. --Gvsualan 22:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was actually under the impression that TAS is not canon, just as the books, video games, comics, etc. are not canon. Can someone verify this? --docdude316 02:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Depends on who you ask. But Memory Alpha's FAQ specifically states that TAS is considered canon here. 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Heath)
To clarify: TAS is considered a valid resource here -- canon is the term used to refer to Trek from the eyes of the studio ownership or the producers, to refer to canon (TV & movies) and non-canon (comics, novels, games, etc)
The creators in the late 80s didnt like TAS, they tried to ensure no new references to it existed in TNG -- but eventually, after changes in staff, TAS references have gradually become accepted on DS9 and ENT -- even though no one at Paramount has said it might be canon "again," we still consider it a valid resource and allow TAS data to be added to articles here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

canon controversy Edit

Memory Alpha is so strict with its cannon policy, and yet the blatently non canon TAS is for some reason contained here. I think all TAS info should be removed, anyone who agrees with me please weigh in. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noahmj (talk • contribs).

While I agree the Animated Series should not normally be considered canon please read this to understand why they've included it: Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ. --Shran 03:56, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should not be ignored, it should have a page just like it does, but i dont think there should be that many references to it in other pages. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noahmj (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure I understand why you think TAS "blatantly non canon." Seems to me that it is just as valid as any other televised Star Trek series, obviously taking into account the limits of the low budget animation. General Grant 12:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Gene Roddenberry officially requested that TAS be fully de-canonized prior to the launch of TNG. That request was honored. It is the only on-screen example of Star Trek to be formally decanonized--but decanonized it was. I think the vast majority of this belongs at Memory Beta, but, then, I'm not even registered, so I don't really have a right to an opinion. -- 00:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but this is all already covered at Memory Alpha:Content policy FAQ. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DS9 References? Edit

"Although The Animated Series is not considered part of Star Trek canon, references have gradually become more accepted in other Star Trek series, most notably on Deep Space Nine and Enterprise"

Can anyone tell me what TAS references there were in Deep Space Nine? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Edosian orchid, IKS Klothos to name a few. Tough Little Ship 20:44, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Name? Edit

So, originally, both this series and the one we now call TOS were just titled Star Trek. Paramount officially adopted the name The Original Series for the 1966-69 live action show in later years. Fandom has come to (almost) universally refer to the cartoons as TAS or The Animated Series, as reflected by this article. However, it is my impression from the official website that Paramount refers to them as the Animated Adventures. While I realize this would involve some rather drastic reformatting across many different articles, shouldn't it be this title and an abbreviation like AA that is used here? --The Mighty Monkey of Mim 11:48, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, but if I remember correctly, the videos were titled "Star Trek: The Animated Series". Besides, Paramount doesn't recognize this series as canon anyway, so I don't think it matters one way or another. --From Andoria with Love 12:00, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The videos were titled The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. See this image of one of the covers from -- 12:39, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • All right, lets get our names right! The Show itself was originally called "Star Trek". The Videos that were released in the 1990s were called "The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek". The 2006 realesed DVD collection, containing all 22 episodes, is called "Star Trek: The Animated Series — The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek". And last but not least,, CBS, and Paramount Pictures call the show "Star Trek: The Animated Series". --Captain Zman 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scotty as Captain Edit

In the mistake portion of this page, there is a sentence that says this episode is the only occurrence of an engineering officer appearing as a Captain. Are we forgetting about Scotty's official promotion to the rank of Captain in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock? To my knowledge, he bore that rank throughout the remainder of the films and was even referred to as "Captain Scott" in the TNG episode "Relics." Ds093 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, removed. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between Captain-as-rank and captain-as-commanding-officer. The point of the passage is that it was the only time we see a chief engineer take command of a ship. It's more appropriate for the episode page, anyway. Oknazevad 02:31, October 27, 2011 (UTC)PS, I know this is a four year old thread. Still needed the clarification.
There is a reason you don't respond to four year old threads. In this case, you lack context as to what you are replying. The sentence in question from the article is clearly about Captain-as-rank, even directly referring to the insignia worn on the uniform. Besides, Scotty served as the commanding officer in "A Taste of Armageddon", and Tucker numerous times. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:24, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
D'Oh! My bad. Oknazevad 04:24, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Canon Clarification/Addition Edit

It seems odd to me that this article wouldn't include any information about its contested canon status, so I took the information from the Canon Policy and formulated it into a short segment that I intend to insert into Background:

The Animated Series is officially considered to be non-canon after being decanonized at Gene Roddenberry's request in 1988.[1](X) (Voyages of Imagination)
Despite official canon policy, Memory Alpha recognizes The Animated Series as a valid resource due to recent indications from the official website that TAS may be re-added to the official canon.[2](X) See also the Canon Policy.

But I know enough about wikis to mention this on the Talk page and wait a day or two for comment before I go and do it. Does anyone object/have any edits for this bit? --BCSWowbagger 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. But I'm curious.. did anyone ever find out where and when Roddenberry made TAS "non-canon"? AFAIK, it's only mentioned by Okuda in the Star Trek Chronology and probably the Encyclopedia, so it's undoubtedly true, but I've never seen anyone turn up an actual source. -- Harry talk 10:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I read... somewhere... that Gene did it mainly to get back at D.C. Fontana after she left TNG, and then claimed that it was "to prevent the weight of TAS canon from unecessarily weighing down the writers of the new series" or some such rationalization. So, if it's anywhere, it'd be in TNG production memos. I think Richard Arnold had something to do with it, too. In the Encylopedia, the Okudas refer only to "official studio policy," so there might be something there, too. A more original source than the ones I cite would be excellent, if anyone has it. Anyhow, pleased to have drawn the attention of one of the founders. Wonderful site you have here! --BCSWowbagger 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Production Number Edit

Does anyone know why there is a production number missing? The production numbers go up to 023 even though there were 22 episodes, and there is no episode with production # 012. Does anyone know the reason for this? was there an episode that was scripted or shot and abandoned at the last minute? It would be nice to get some info on this. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No, but check this out: Somebody has created two new ones recently. --LauraCC (talk) 20:15, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, here's a possible answer on the same site: --LauraCC (talk) 20:16, April 30, 2015 (UTC)