Canon policyEdit

This point has been discussed a few times before, and I believe there is a sort of concensus now that we will use the species names and homeworld names (excluding the 'Terran names' like Tau 56 II for Xelata) from this publication. I propose we definitely set the limit there, and not allow any other data points from this source to be used as canon.

The difficult part will be to make this clear in the article, and to defend our position on the validity of this resource.

An alternative would of course be to completely disregard this source, and handle all these aliens as if they're unnamed. This may be more fitting with how MA currently handles secondary sources. But on the other hand, these names are extremely unlikely to ever be contradicted by primary sources, and even other 'non-canon' sources seem to use these names. Furthermore, these particular names are in pretty widespread use in the community. And perhaps these names even originated with the production people, as with the TMP aliens? -- Harry t 19:06, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Well in some sort the book like the rest of the FASA material was canon back when they were published. I just saw that the not official registration of the TOS-Farragut 1647 is now used in Memory Alpha as if it was canon, so I see no reason, why the names from this "reference work" shoul be ignored -- Kobi - (Talk) 19:45, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
This has ben discussed before, as an example of a valid resource -- even though we pride ourselves on MA's quality as specifically only devoted to create articles on canon subjects, we still use the valid resource term to differentiate from canon in a few ways (since the studio doesn't consider TAS as canon, but we consider it valid). By honoring valid resources, we recognize TAS, and script data from behind the scenes sources -- and the FASA game is one example, since they transcribed the makeup department's notes on what the new aliens would be named -- even though those names never made it to screen. Even though this source is non-canon, it still is a resource of valid MA article material (specifically, only that information which was taken from the STIV production office) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:54, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with this. But then my question is, is it true that these names actually originated from the production notes? -- Harry t 19:59, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had heard that, but I'm afraid I can't quite cite a source for that information. I had heard something like this back on Flare Forums earlier this century. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:04, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The "Kasheeta" shown is WRONG! It doesn't look like the Kasheeta shown on pages 74 & 75 and in the middle in the Star Trek:IV Sourcebook Update.

The rest of the bookEdit

I only have copies of the alien-related pages, so I can't say anything about the rest of the book. Any more specific info would be appreciated. -- Harry t 19:06, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the book, and the background information on each of the featured aliens is quite extensive. As for the rest of the book, there is also information on what happened after the Genesis incident, and an updated timeline. There's also a page with black-and-white pictures of the emblems of each of the twelve featured aliens. Zsingaya Talk 15:40, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Edit informationEdit

I removed the bullet point information about this book being packaged with the Strider Incident and Regula deckplans. Strider/regula came in the same package, but the ST4 book was separate from those two products. As the entry was related to the ISBN, I hope this was not an error on my part. This data also erroneously listed the ST4 book as an adventure module, and it's actually a sourcebook. Strider/Regula was an adventure, of course. Cheers. -RSThe preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).