Talk:Donatra

Yeah! You go ! – AT2Howell 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, even though AT2Howell apparently agrees that we have an "alternate history" here, how do we know which is "real" and which is "alternate"?


 * I think we need to look deeper at structuring the article like this (sorry, AT2) -- Captain MKB 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's vote. All those who choose to not ignore a dozen novels and a comic book, say "Aye".  Those who think a video game can negate all other sources just so we can see the Federation and Klingons duke it out, say "ignore".  Evidently, 70.64.136.19 votes Aye. – AT2Howell 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, but that's not how it's going to work. We don't vote about which sources to ignore and which to recognize.


 * The point I'm trying to make is that, even though certain points about STO are slightly different that we would expect based on other sources, we shouldn't jump the gun and start "marking" all STO information with disclaimers about alternate history, based on five or ten discrepancies with the current novel series.


 * Let's use this talk page the right way and list here what doesn't fit between the STO Donatra and the Pocket Books Donatra, and then make a consensus. It's a little pointless to count votes when you haven't explained the points you would expect us to vote on here-- I haven't read any new novels nor have I familiarized myself with STO. -- Captain MKB 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "new" novels are everything post television series. The post DS9 books detail quite a bit which contradicts the developments in the Online story.  These include little differences like Bajoran/Cardassian politics and character development of Ro Laren.  The post TNG, post Voyager, Titan, Articles of the Federation, and Klingon Empire books lead us to Destiny and beyond, all of which are extrememly contrary to STO on a galactic scale.  A multitude of inter-galactic politics and character development is thrown out the window by STO.  STO is headed for a Klingon/Federation showdown.  The novels are headed for a Khitomer Accord/Typhon Pact showdown.  The later has multiple sources to back it up.  STO has only itself.  My vote is that we igonore nothing, and place this errant timeline where it belongs.  Anyone voting to pretend STO agrees with the rest of the universe is choosing to ignore the rest of the universe. – AT2Howell 16:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I need to make is that we don't need to note Donatra as being alternate history unles Donatra is different in STO -- please, let's not address the whole here, just what it had to do with Donatra.


 * For example, if STO and the new novels agree that the USS Lollipop was destroyed in 2381, then there's no problem with us writing the article about the USS Lollipop and NOT noting any of this "errant timeline" problem -- see what I mean? The parts of the STO timeline that don't contradict anything don't need this treatment -- Captain MKB 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

STO puts Donatra on the same side as the RSE after Tal Aura's death. The novels put Donatra on the UFP side due to the Khitomer/Typhon split. The two do not jive. – AT2Howell 16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However this occurs four years after the current novel continuity’s current extent. We have no idea how long the Typhon Pact will hold together, and while the Online timeline does not acknowledge the Pact there is nothing contradictory about the two Romulan states eventually reuniting. The only contradictions between Online and prose-verse for this particular page are the exact details of how Donatra formed the IRS (and even then they're pretty close).


 * And as I've noted before on this issue it is inappropriate for us to be using terms like alternate timeline and universe, that the language of fans rationalising, while these are instances of alternate continuities, both the prose and online universes are meant to be continuations of the "main" timeline. --8of5 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To return to the USS Lolipop argument, if a novel says the USS Lolipop was destroyed in 2381 and another novel says the USS Lolipop-A was launched in 2383, I would say that between these two books that this is true. There is then a series of novels based around this incident.  If a video game then comes along and tells a story about the adventures of the USS Lolipop which occured from 2382 until it's destruction in 2384, we must call this a mistake.  If the video game goes on to claim that due to this incident, the Federation was conquered by the Pakled, we might consider it a tangent.  An over simplification?  Yes, but an accurate one. – AT2Howell 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've lost me. We're all aware you disagree with the game's direction, but are you trying to prove reasons why we shouldn't recognize the game?


 * If one source says a ship was lost in 2381, and another says the very same ship was lost in 2384, seems more like an error than an alternate timeline. If there are political consequences to the ship's loss, then they would have relevance regardless of which date we reference. -- Captain MKB 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Donatra information on STO is more or less in line with the novels I think. There might be one or two points that are different but otherwise I don't see much problem with it. I persnoally think that if there is a minor point between the two novels that are different then it should be noted in italics. I mean its not like there hasnt been two different sources stated before in other articles. Surak's parents are different in the novel continuity when compared to the LUG one. And yet with those articles we don't put alternate universe on them. Just my thought though on the subject. – Darth Batrus 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the Worf article as an example. Look at the bottom of his page.  There is a bit that is offset from the rest of the article in italics.  This presents information from a possible future for Worf which has not been ruled out yet.  The reason it is offset is because it hasn't happened yet, and there is only one source.  Let's do the same for Donatra's article.  Italics and offset until we can get another source to confirm this information.  Like a novel or two.  I do not propose to ignore information, just to balance it with other sources. – AT2Howell 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)