I was going to create an article about the Kirk v. Picard screenwriting contest on FanLib, but I wasn't sure if it belongs here or in the Expanded Universe Wiki. The contest was considered official and sponsored by CBS, but I'm not sure if that's in the realm of "licensed" or not. It seems like a gray area, so I thought I'd ask. cvalin 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the contest, but the story would only be considered to be "licensed" (our standard for inclusion here) if it was published by CBS-Paramount (or a recognized current licensee, like Pocket or Decipher) in a magazine, book, or website. The unpublished submissions would fall under "expanded universe" (i.e. "fan fiction") -- Captain MKB 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I should have been more clear -- we can't include it here until and unless the story is published in its entirety on an official Star Trek site, like StarTrek.com. The operative part of that sentence above was "published by CBS-Paramount ... (on a) website". -- Captain MKB 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, got it. I misunderstood because it was officially sanctioned and sponsored by CBS even though it was published at a fan fiction site. Thanks for clearing it up. I'll create it over at the expanded universe wiki. cvalin 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, the first part of the winning story was published in an issue of the Star Trek Magazine last year. --8of5 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. Does that make it qualify? I realize Captainmike said "In its entirety" and I hate to keep harping on this, but it seems a little more "official" than the material at the expanded universe wiki, even though it doesn't seem to fit perfectly over here, either. Thanks. cvalin 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's a partial story that was in the magazine, we are limited to only referencing the parts of the particular story that were published in the magazine -- the unpublished story and the unpublished parts of the published story are what are off limits here on MB. -- Captain MKB 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be a bit messy... and it's not as if something being published and Star Trek is always enough anyways, deleted scenes are offically released on dvd but they dont count. --8of5 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I was going to give up (and I already created the article at the expanded universe wiki anyway), but if I could just get you to read one thing from the StarTrek.com website (here [2]) and you still don't consider it "licensed," I promise I won't say another word about it. Thanks again, and I'm sorry...I don't really mean to be a pain about this. cvalin 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No pain, it gives us a chance to be clear -- the stories themselves are not part of what we are doing here, because they are not licensed by Paramount to be sold in books or published in a manner that matches any other of our included sources -- just because they sponsor a contest, it does not constitute a license for the publication of the stories submitted (this is what we mean by "licensed" -- Paramount grants a license for things to be sold with the name "Star Trek"). I hope that clarifies things.
- Have you followed the "Strange New Worlds" contest? -- there were many many stories submitted, but the only ones we really reference here are the ones that were published in the Strange New Worlds series of books. -- Captain MKB 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Thanks so much for you patience and assistance! cvalin 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Background information
User:Captain Savar has (perhaps inadvertently) made note of an issue with this policy in relation to the S'ti'ach page. The S'ti'ach are quite clearly, by their description in the novels, based on the character of Stitch from the film Lilo & Stitch. The exact details of the origin of the design are obviously not given in the novel because it is a real world in-joke, relying on the reader’s cultural capital to understand it. It is however relevant and interesting information for the wiki and should be included as background information on that page. So this policy needs to be reworked in a way that allows that sort of background information on pages while continuing to clearly define the existing rule for in-universe info. --8of5 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's another example brewing -- the character of Enab of Borg is a poorly disguised copy of the Batman villain Bane (Bane backwards = Enab).
- The character was in a DC comic, during the last four or five issues of the DC TNG run -- probably right after they had started to plan for cancellation and gotten their pinkslips, they slipped in this over-the-top DC character parody into the War and Madness storyline. Of course, you'd have to read non-Trek DC comics to know that, there's nothing "citable" that says so. Same goes for Quincy Harker. -- Captain MKB 14:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are ahead of me here. I just made a note on the Talk:S'ti'ach page about this. I am not really sure how best to fix this page. But I think we should try to mention these tricky issues. In many cases I think there is nothing better to say (not necessarily say on this very page) other than any non-sourced comments (e.g. the thing about Bane) are subject to community review just like anything else. If the community deems it not clear enough (Bane is clear but what if we just had the name without the picture) is it worth saying "is possibly named for?" The Bane commented doesn't even say "is named for" and so should be even less controversial. --Jdvelasc 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- There was even more discussion of issues like this centering around the Eugenics Wars books -- Greg Cox had included numerous characters into the Star Trek universe based on sly references to other genre shows. -- Captain MKB 17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think community review seems like a good answer. Keep the existing policy for in-universe information and allow real-world/background information to exist without citation (though encourage citation where possible) with the option for the community to dictate whether we think it should remain on the page or not through talk page discussion of it's felt questionable. --8of5 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just to give some insight here - taking myself as an example, I don't read Batman comics, and I've never seen Lilo and Stitch. I have no references to determine if a "connection" exists or not. Certainly someone can write that on the M-B article, and perhaps think that everyone will just nod their head and go "oh, I see" but this wiki, like most others, is being constantly hit by people who theorize and draw their own connections and then present them as fact. Without any sort of source, well-meaning but potentially mistaken people like myself are going to come along, read the text, go "hey, look, no citation" and hopefully do what I did and move it to the talk page, or might just outright remove the information. It would be super-helpful to have a link to an author's annotations page, a BBS post, anything. --Captain Savar 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is why we should "encourage citation where possible" in these instances. But that won’t always be possible, not every author maintains an online presence and/or can be contacted to confirm things. I too wouldn't have a clue about the Batman reference, I'm willing to take it on good faith from other contributors, which if they word and link their background notes well enough will make clear they aren't just making it up. I think this is why an option for community review would work, we don’t have a clue about Batman, but other contributors do and can argue the clarity of the connection. --8of5 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's one thing to remove a piece of information that you know is false (i.e. the recent edit to the Sean Hawk page saying he and Ranul were married). However, if one isn't familiar with Lilo and Stitch, then how can that person make the judgment that the S'ti'ach wasn't modeled on the character? It's better, I think, to add one of the "citation needed" notes in the text rather than deleting it. And, if there isn't an easily cited source, qualifiers like "presumably," "apparently," or "likely," ought to be used. --75.168.142.109 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anon, it's why I moved it to the talk page and brought it up rather than just offing it, as I did to the Sean Hawk page. I'm not making any judgments, I'm following policy. Policy says to cite it, or it will be removed, and that's what I did. To make a final comment on your suggestions, if we start allowing things to be liberally added with any of the so-called weasel words you suggest (to borrow the Wikipedia term), I think it would allow for a creep of fanon or untrue materials to join this wiki. --Captain Savar 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
In additional the recent problems discussed above this policy page is extremely lacking in general. The summary of this section on the main policies page is "What we accept, and what we don't accept." I'd say we need to make clear exactly what that is (a lot of the recent debates we've had could be cleared up by this policy being properly detailed). So offer the following proposal for this policy page (taking some inspiration from Memory Alpha's Canon policy page)--8of5 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC):
Memory Beta's objective is to be a guide the entire Star Trek universe as portrayed in officially licensed Star Trek fiction products. This policy details precisely what are acceptable sources and how to approach their inclusion in the database.
- ==Article types==
Broadly speaking there are two types of article or page section on Memory Beta, those which give in-universe information on the Star Trek universe, and those which provide real world information on sources and background to in-universe articles.
- ===In-universe articles===
These are articles written from the in-universe perspective, subjects include characters, locations, object and events. All additions to these articles should be accompanied by a citation to the licensed Star Trek product the information originated from (see the style guide for guidance on use of citation templates). Appropriate sources include Star Trek episodes, movies, novelizations, novels, novellas, short stories, audiobooks, comics, video games, roleplaying game books, the CCG, reference books, magazines, calendars and websites.
Memory Beta's focus is on the Star Trek universe as established in licensed products, as such in-universe articles should have at least one citation from a licensed product other than an episode or movie. Articles which deal exclusively with content from episodes and movies are likely to be deleted.
Additionally sources must be the complete and final version of a product, information from pre-release sources (trailers, excerpts and previews) is not an acceptable source for in-universe information.
Content which is not cited to one of the licensed sources, or that cite an unacceptable source - such as fan-fiction, unlicensed publications or speculation - are not suitable for this database and will be removed.
- ===Real world articles===
These articles are written from the real world perspective, subjects include pages for each of the types of source listed above, the different Star Trek series and miniseries, and people and companies involved in the production of Star Trek products.
Background information should be cited whenever possible, from sources such as articles and interviews from magazines or websites, author annotations, or comments by Star Trek content producers in public forums.
Speculative background notes - for instance detailing an in-joke, or the likely real-world origin of a starship name - are acceptable subject to community discussion on their appropriateness and may be removed in deemed inappropriate or inaccurate.
- ==Conflicts==
Due to the longevity and continually evolving nature of the Star Trek franchise the many licensed publications produced over the years often generate contradictory information. Memory Beta policy is all-inclusive, information from two or more contradictory sources can and should be included, with background notation describing the nature of the contradiction.
In all instances canon information takes precedence, episodes and movies override contradictory information from earlier non-canon sources. Beyond this Memory Beta does not operate any sort of hierarchy for licensed sources, all information is equal in value. However, in the case of an overwhelming majority of sources being contradicted by a minority source, for the purposes of page structure the information from the majority takes precedence, with the minority alternate continuity presented as side information at the appropriate junction in the article.
Memory Beta's purpose is not to reconcile the Star Trek universe, articles should be written assuming events take place in a singular Star Trek universe, and contradictions between different continuities only noted when overtly contradictory in regards to the specific subject of the article.
Discussion
This seems to be on point -- the only thing that concerns me is the "community discussion", as many of those new to wikis seem to get easily insulted when anyone questions them regardless of the subject. A lot of those discussions will be over whether we can weasel-word things that we probably shouldn't -- like the recently reverted "Infact (sic) this is definitely a reference to Lilo & Stich" -- bad grammar aside, we'll spend a good chunk of time explaining to people why they can't state these things in arcane manners. -- Captain MKB 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly the most... flexible, section of the text. But I think we need that flexibility. Without we would restrict ourselves to not including very obvious and/or easily substantiated speculation which I think is useful for a lot of background information on the naming of subjects. Taking the S'ti'ach example, it is definitely a reference to Lilo & Stich; obviously we shouldn't word it quite so definitively, but it is a very obvious reference and one we should make note of on the article. --8of5 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Recent events reminded me we almost got some detail policy going here... So re the community discussion thing - I think that line needs to stay really, there are elements of background information and especially in jokes that can't be decided on any other way. And it’s a good thing to encourage community discussion; it's far preferable to people not bothering to discuss controversial additions, or not including them at all.
Also it occurs to me the last line could be confusing for those not familiar with how we juggle the terms continuity and universe: "Memory Beta's purpose is not to reconcile the Star Trek universe, articles should be written assuming events take place in a singular Star Trek universe, and contradictions between different continuities only noted when overtly contradictory in regards to the specific subject of the article." any suggestion on how we can make clear what that passage is suggesting, while also explaining how we do incorporate information from alternate universes when they are established as such in-universe. --8of5 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps: "Memory Beta's purpose is not to reconcile the Star Trek universe. Articles should be written assuming events take place in a singular Star Trek universe, and contradictions between different continuities should be noted only when they overtly conflict in regards to the specific subject of the article, or when a separation of timelines is explicitly stated."--Cicero 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)