Star Trek: Titan
Ok so I get the part about non speculation, but we KNOW that Picard and The Last Best Hope retconned the Relaunch continuity. Likewise Lower Decks (as far as I am aware), and the only elements from Star Trek: Titan we know for sure will feature are Will, Deanna, and the Titan. That's it. So why is there a reference specifically to Titan as a series of novels as opposed to the Titan as an in-universe starship?MadeIndescribable (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad you understand the concept of speculation being over the top for this site so that I don't have to explain it to you. (wiki principle being a tangent off of: "Memory Beta is not a preview/review site")
- There is a question of interpretation as well, in terms of labeling the works. Certainly one very broad interpretation is that Last Best Hope "retconned the Relaunch continuity" -- but actually, Picard (the TV thing) did the retconning. LBH simply followed the lead of the TV series. In fact, in terms of interpretation, LBH featured only a few passages concerning Picard divorcing himself from the TNG crew. Certainly they were holding back from mentioning details of the TNG novel continuity, but this isnt retconning all of it, just going along with the show and omitting the parts which the show made invalid.
- Since you understand the problem with speculation, i'd ask that you also consider the problem of misplaced interpretation -- especially considering that we are not a review site. if the Star Trek Picard (as a whole) is causing changes to continuity of one part of the larger body of valid sources, it is economical to place descriptions of such on the overall STP page, the overall page for those works, and to not trouble ourselves writing broad descriptions that might be open to interpretation on every single work affected.
- Speculation of the "this will probably retcon this" is egregious, because you're speculating about something that hasnt happened yet, but the broad interpretation "this has completely retconned this" is also wrong because it retcons parts of it, not the whole. Sometimes a retcon is much simpler. When Second Chances retconned the middle name Peter David had assigned to Riker, there was no reaction (overreaction?) that Peter David was cancelled and "Imzadi continuity was retconned". He simply wrote a bit in a later work that explained the difference
- I wrote individual notes on the books starting with Death In Winter that described what parts of the story were retconned. Certainly the fact that the Kevrata exist and minutiae like the name of their beverages are not retconned. There's no forthcoming episode or novel that says "the Kevrata don't exist". The evolution of the JLP/Beverly relationship continuing on the Enterprise was retconned (actually at that point Death In Winter could possibly be reconciled with canon, we'll see in later seasons/works). That's what i wrote. The rest of the wiki will grind on, with data about the JLP/Beverly relationship being moved to the margins, but the rest of the Death In Winter does not need warning stickers.
- Sure, they're probably going to give Titan (the series) a major shakeup. We can probably note that in the page about the series - when it happens - and we'll be specific. if they swap out the supporting cast for a new one and say 'they've always been here' - then yes, that's a huge retcon -- but will that change the name of all the Titan's shuttles we list here on Memory Beta? no, the wiki will continue to catalog. We'll see. -- captainmike 13:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess I'm coming largely from a production point of view, in that the new writers (both for TV and Una McCormack) are essentially coming from a place of "the larger Relaunch narrative isn't compatible with the new stories we're writing so we're just leaving the whole thing alone and starting fresh rather than picking and choosing".
(Also want to make it clear that I love the Relaunch and the Titan series, and will continue to do so, just trying to clarify its status in terms of official canon and the new novels going forward.) MadeIndescribable (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's been a source of contention for a while here, both the tendency for fans to get on a soapbox and review things (this was an early issue in the first half decade of MB), as well as people who draw a broader conclusion than what might be mandated by what should be a much simpler fact.
- To clarify my comment in regards to a production standpoint commentary - the new writers are obviously coming from a place where the new story isn't compatible with the larger relaunch narrative - and we can comment on individual portions we see existing as contradictions (as per my note on post-Death In Winter novels with the 'retro continuity' tag). But writing passages explaining the larger interpretation are getting away from a clear, concise and defined approach. For example, saying that Una McCormack is doing the retcons smacks of manufacturing a review based on interpretation. Quoting a magazine article or social media chat where Una explains the approach is much more in line with crafting something to use here. otherwise you're kind of templating your own commentary on something that could be taken a different way -- captainmike 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the TV writers and Una basically working in unison, coming from the same place, etc, didn't mean to single her out. I saw an online Q&A where she talked about how any consideration of the relaunch just never happened in the writers room, and naturally she had to follow that. (And if I were to use that in an article itself, obviously I'd reference it). MadeIndescribable (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)