FANDOM


Unwritten Edit

My distinction canon/non-canon was used to avoid adding all sources (I know the distinction here is useless), as the canon references could be found easily on other sources (mostly MA) if Special:Whatlinkshere doesn't find that reference. That's why I've only added sources for non-canon references. - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to insert • because I don't find it on my azerty keyboard and must always copy/paste. That's why I change it to "/". There are many more missing (I've only checked up to B) - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

there's no real need to make the distinction. those said to be from canon are not tagged with sources so the distinction is meaningless, it doesnt tell a potential contributor anything about where to look for a source except to narrow down that it is from 700+ episodes/movies rather than from 700+ novels/comics/games. some may be referenced in both canon and non canon also. if we are going to tag these with sources, lets do it specifically rather than being vague about it, as that does not help anyone any. - Captain MKB 17:05, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
the bullet character should be a shortcut in the toolbox under your edit window. - Captain MKB 17:05, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, the one who will create articles based on an unwritten list is rather a skilled contributor than a casual contributor (who just read a novel and wants to add a reference he just saw), as the skilled contributor knows how to use Special:Whatlinkshere and gets a great documentation database to search those kind of references (episode transcripts, digital version of books... to search rapidly, because he won't watch 45min episode or read a 200pages book for just one ref ;). Knowing a character is canon for a skilled contributor means he knows that he could find a few references in Memory Alpha too or other sources (no need to tell me, he should beware not simply copying those sources for copyright issues, that's another debate I'll agree with). I can add sources for canon characters too if you wish so. - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 17:49, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

We've never been in a habit of differentiating canon data points from non-canon licensed subject matter so its odd. why not just list each one with its episodic source. that makes it quite clear where a skilled or unskilled contributor might find data for expansion, as well as informing them of the canon source. -- Captain MKB 20:23, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

lol. As I said, I can add sources, no problems, I've already added them to those I've added (and even to the 9 ones that already were there before without sources ;) Now there will be another problem, this unwritten section will expand extensively (I've only added A-B for the moment) - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 21:21, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

if you examine category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel you can see how such a section could be broken off for expansion - Captain MKB 17:05, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Great, moved it to Memory Beta:Unwritten "Real" people articles. It's now far more adapted, visually and technically ;). - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 18:59, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaborative spirit :) i didnt have time to completely explain but you worked this very well into the framework of the example - Captain MKB 19:33, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Real people Policy Edit

Indirect references (ships, planets...) Edit

What is the policy here for indirect references like starships :

  • Full name like :
  • First name only like USS Drake can obviously be Sir Francis Drake, the astronomer Franck Drake or... so they are obviously non valid. But if Encyclopedia or another official sourcebook confirms its origin (Encylopedia 3rd Ed p122 refers USS Drake from TNG episode: "The Arsenal of Freedom" and DS9 episode: "Apocalypse Rising" as derivative from explorer Sir Francis Drake, however this comment is rather a background note), so how should it be included here in general policy ? I haven't found a logic from actual articles. - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
These people that have ships named after them shouldnt be linked unless the person was mentioned or referenced as being the ships namesake. i know of no stephen decatur reference in any trek work, for example, so hes not valid article material (even though a ship is named for him) -- mkb

I even didn't know this guy ;) It was just the first example I found here (seems he's a US Commodore according to wikipedia). So, to resume "full name" ships are not valid. and when Encyclopedia (Drake example above) or another source refers to the name origin (even in a rather - to my mind - real world note by Okuda), the reference is valid, did I understood correctly ?
If so, what about real planets (Mars, Neptune, Venus...) and real ships (Saturn, Atlas, Ariane, ...) that we actually know where their name comes from ?
I know it's complicated but rather ask those kind of questions ;). - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 22:45, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Unnamed artists and authors Edit

What is the policy here for unnamed composers, authors, painters, of artistic works featured in canon or official works ? On MA, they are not considered valid resources, but I haven't found here how it works here. - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

as to unnamed artists, etc. i'm not sure what you mean. example? -- mkb

I'll take examples from canon ones to illustrate (don't want to search an hour for non-canon references), Vermeer (not cited) who painted "A Woman Holding a Balance" (shown in TNG: "Silicon Avatar", "Phantasms") and "The Concert" (VOY: "The Killing Game") {MA-en strangely created a link for Vermeer} ; Johann Strauss II (not cited) who composed "Roses from the South" (TOS: "The Squire of Gothos") and "The Blue Danube" (DS9: "Statistical Probabilities" ; VOY: "Renaissance Man") {MA-en strangely created an article for Strauss, which I'm rather opposed with). But if you take the same starship logic for those unnamed artists or authors, no article about them should be written, as they are not mentioned or referenced, that's what I wanted to know, I have my response (just wanted to check). - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 18:10, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the reasoning behind the artists on artwork on MA is simply that those pieces of art are know for their original artists, and that's the extension by which the articles were created. -- sulfur (talk) 19:22, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I would agree if MA had a constant logic behind this, but they rather change their mind constantly (many examples), so that it became incomprehensible. That's why I preferred ask how it works on MB. So, if I've understood correctly, those unnamed artists/authors should have their article if their original work is cited or shown ? - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 22:07, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Real vs Mythological characters Edit

I've finished listing unwritten articles (there may be others) for Category:Mythological characters (earth ones), and I still haven't understood everything in the Category talk:Mythological characters page. To my mind, mythological are people who's existence is uncertain :

  • Monsters and creatures (werewolf, vampires, ...) and Gods (greeks, egyptians, nordic) are rather mythological in earth history even if their true nature is shown in ST.
  • Normal humans who's existence is possible but unsure : old Pharaohs have mostly been considered as real because of proof found, most personalities of antic Rome and antic Greece are considered real. But there are still ambiguities for some people : all the characters from Trojan wars (Agamemnon, Achilles, Helen, Ulysses...), from King Arthur cycles, from antic civilisations origins (Romulus and Remus), and some biblical figures. Those kind of ambiguous characters are not so easy to categorize, I rather disagree with the statement "in the real world, no one denies that Jesus Christ existed. --TimPendragon" as it is a Christian view of history that found some consensus without real proof.

So should "real" people cat include earth mythological characters ? (adding an introduction note that some of these characters's existence is uncertain for purpose of not clearly consider them as real or myth)
Shouldn't there be an Earth mythological characters category be created as subdivision of both mythological and real people categories ? - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 16:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

My first thought would be to rely on our primary sources: licensed Star Trek. If in-universe mythological people are considered real, we may follow the lead unless it is clearly a joke (like Chekov demanding stuff invented in Russia). For clarity'S sake, a note could be added metioning the real-world state-of-the-art opinion (e.g. "King" Arthur a myth, Roman soldier "Arthur" possibly real). –-- Markonian 17:45, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

This logic can't apply as this category is not an in-universe category, but a real world category ("This page lists "real" people, people who live or once lived in the "real world" who have also appeared in or been referenced in Star Trek."). With this logic, people listed here should only be in the humans category because they are as "real" as Jean-Luc Picard in the ST universe. On the other side, this logic implies that Apollo is "real" and shouldn't belong to mythological character. Furthermore, the heroes of Trojan wars or Arthurian legends, which are actually mythological characters, could be real characters in-universe as evidence may have been found in the 21/22/23/24 century when they were referenced. This category is a real world category, and a really interesting one for viewers to my mind (generally a viewer finding this catg will be interested in all those characters who rely the ST universe with the real world). That's why I proposed to change the introduction to enable the inclusion of characters whose existence remains uncertain. - From Cardassia with pain (talk) 18:36, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. My suggestion is then: Only include real-world historically verifiable persons in this category, excluding the likes of Gilgamesh, Arthur, Robin Hood, etc., thus the category will be "exactly what it says on the tin." –-- Markonian 10:48, October 11, 2013 (UTC)