Not canon Edit

The portions of the Picard Family Album not seen onscreen are Restricted Validity Resources under the current canon policy. This article can nonetheless exist as, I believe, under the section on "Restricted Validity Resources and Initial Article Creation". It has to be noted as non-canon, however; I'll make the change. Aholland 04:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again (as stated at Talk:Akira class), if it's non-canon, it can't exist here. See, here's where some of the problems with the policy lie. ;) --From Andoria with Love 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This information is not considered canon by Paramount, would not be considered canon under the old policy as long as anyone disputed it through discussion, would be sidelined into a separate section under Cid's June 2004 draft, would be tossed out entirely by the FAQ, and it may even be non-canon in Tim's February 2006 draft (a little hard to tell; it is really ambiguous on the matter). I would support deletion of the article, but the current policy is that it is a special variant of a resource and allowed so long as it is clearly identified as non-canon to prevent misinterpretation by a reader. I don't understand the problem having a distinction between what is clearly part of the Trek universe and what is close, but no cigar. If the term "non-canon" is a problem, let's call it "invalid" or "apocryphal" - just so long as a reader understands that TPTB would not look to it for guidance on the what the Trek universe is. Aholland 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Picard's family album is kept on display at Star Trek: The Experience and the pages are turned periodically by one of the production staff for view. Therefore, Paramount acknowledges the album. As for the subject as a whole, and this may be something I didn't make clear before and should probably be placed in a more "viewable" talk page for others to see because this is important: my take on it is that if this is an "encyclopedia" written in the "characters point of view" and the "character saw it" (whether we did or not -- and we know it existed in production materials) then it fits into the criteria of existing "in universe". As long as it does not conflict with established canon, it should at least be considered and somehow carefully included in our "encyclopedia" for the sake of the "character's perspective". If necessary we can create a template to post at the top of these pages that say something to the effect that "the following information comes from a secondary source," or something equally descriptive without overkilling the subject of its validity. (PS: I also made this reference on Non-Canon?, any reply that relates directly to this should be addressed there. Thanks.)--Alan del Beccio 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Jaf 03:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

I've been to Star Trek: The Experience. The only thing Paramount is acknowledging is that the prop exists; nothing more. I otherwise responded back on the Canon page, although a standardized note that lets a reader understand the nature of the article and its validity in the Trek universe makes sense. I would suggest something a bit more blunt, though, for reasons better explained there. Aholland 04:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, labeling it as either apocryphal or invalid would have the same result as if it were directly labeled non-canon: the article would and should be deleted as per our policies and guidelines. To prevent that, saying it's canonicity is questionable or debatable or something to that effect and leaving it at that (for the reader to interpret) should suffice. --From Andoria with Love 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See the Canon discussion page for more on what policy is as regards deletion of things noted as non-canon. Aholland 05:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)