I fail to see any reasoning determining Okeg as belonging to an 'alternate reality' or other continuity. We have a source saying he assumes presidency in 2392, and there are no other sources establishing any contrary type of reality as existing in 2392... -- Captain MKB 22:40, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

In case SCI failed to read this talk page explaining the last round of edits he attempted to revert, I fail to see any reasoning determining Okeg as belonging to an 'alternate reality' or other continuity. We have a source saying he assumes presidency in 2392, and there are no other sources establishing any contrary type of reality as existing in 2392... -- Captain MKB 04:15, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

We have a source saying he took office in 2392, in an astropolitical field completely different from the one established to exist in the novels. There was never a Borg Invasion in the STO continuity, never a Typhon Pact, there's a hostile Klingon Empire, there's a re-integrated Romulan Star Empire, etc. Now, if Okeg appears in a novel set in the continuity of the, say, "Destiny"-verse, then, by all means, add a succession box that says, "President of the United Federation of Planets (novel continuity)" in addition to the one that says "President of the United Federation of Planets (Star Trek Online continuity)." But to put him there and not acknowledge that it's a character that comes from a contradictory continuity to the continuity presented in the novels is to be both incomplete and misleading. -- Sci 04:00 7 MAR 2010 UTC

Sci, you've missed the point of my edits I think - lists of Presidential succession that do not have an overt contradiction don't require this much need to 'overinform'. The basic fact of it is that Bacco was President, and then succeeded by Okeg. The fact that the 'astropolitical field' was different is not really grounds to start disregarding information. Just because you don't believe the other topics don't fit together rightly, i don't really see it as reason to disregard all STO figures as alternate versions of the same character. In the novels, Bacco is the 2370s-80s Federation President. In the game, Bacco left the presidency and was succeeded. Just because the politics involved are contradictory, it doesn't mean the succession was. -- Captain MKB 05:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point of them -- I think the point is wrong. And no information was disregarded whatsoever. The only difference is that I noted that Okeg becomes President in 2392 in the Star Trek Online continuity, nothing more and nothing less. And the article itself inherently needs to be about the astropolitical field in which this character comes to power and the policies he takes in response to that field, as Presidents do not come to power or govern in a vacuum; that means that the details are simply too intertwined with the basic facts of the character to avoid noting that this is a distinct continuity than that of the novels. You cannot do the article without going into those kinds of contradictory details, especially since we have no reason in the world to think that Okeg will succeed Bacco in the novels.

And, again, that's not a judgmental thing. It's not pejorative. It is simply an acknowledgment that there are multiple Star Trek continuities now. In an age where we even make entirely separate articles for James T. Kirk and Company because there are now versions of those characters existing in different continuities, simply noting that someone becomes President in one unique continuity seems like a silly thing to object to. -- Sci 04:38 7 MAR 2010 UTC

I'm saying that noting continuities is not necessary in sidebars and lists, and browser templates. In fact, it's quite annoying and pointless. Bacco was succeeded by Okeg, and her sidebar should note that, without reference to any continuities, because there is only one continuity where Bacco is succeded. The continuities are multiple, but we're really overthinking it if we are picking and choosing which ones have to be annotated - and you've shown clear prejudice against non-novel sources in this regard.

For example, you are noting separate continuities for RPG games, video games, reference book material like Picard's scrapbook. Each time, your reasoning is that is deviates from your interpretation of the post Articles of Federation novels. You've even assigned years to Presidential succession based on your interpretation of Articles of Federation's, and disregarded Presidents from being 'official' in lists of succession because they contradict the scheme presented in Articles of Federation.

See a theme? Everything's an alternate continuity if it wasn't in your favorite book. Memory Beta has been evolving to the point where other sources are going to have to be considered with equal weight, rather that 'weighing' them as being separate because they contradict one novel. It's not as if we put a note on Bacco saying 'Bacco was only President in the post-TNG novel continuity' just because there's a possibility a card game would present another continuity. Okeg hasn't been contradicted as a person, or a President, so why take the extra step of saying in his sidebar "oh, he's not a real incumbent President, only the one before him from the novels is". I don't want Memory Beta to subscribe to this kind of attitude you display where 'The novels are the only mainstream Star Trek literature and everything else should be considered subordinate' - the other sources should be expanded upon and listed without qualification. -- Captain MKB 06:08, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

1. Re: Sidebars. And I'm saying that noting continuities in sidebars and lists is important, as it spells out clearly who is what in what continuity.

2. I want to note separate continuities for RPG games and video games when there's a clear contradiction with the novel continuity, yes. I also want to note separate continuities for novels like Prime Directive or Crucible that contradict the mainstream continuity. I want information from the Shatnerverse noted as being from the Shatnerverse, too. If there was a way we could settle on a name for the general continuity of the novels ("Destinyverse?"), I'd want all of them specially noted, too! In "Memory Beta According To Sci," every unique continuity would get its own name and label the way the Abrams continuity does.

3. The PFA is not a reference work. It's not a work of licensed fiction in any sense. It's just a prop book whose contents went unseen in the canon.

4. Re: Succession years. Yes, I did that way back when I first discovered this wiki in 2006, when it wasn't yet made clear to me (or when it hadn't yet been decided, I don't remember which) that the Non-Canon Wiki (as it was then known) would refrain from doing such things as including conjectural data or attempting to reconcile apparent contradictions. I have no objection to removing those years from their articles.

5. I'm not sure what you mean by "disregarded Presidents from being 'official' in lists of succession." Are you referring to the List of Presidents that I created four or five years ago? In that one, I seem to recall placing Hirashito and Sarboran in alternate continuities because they both clearly contradicted Errand of Fury and Vanguard: Harbinger, which established two completely different people to have served as President during the years that Hirashito and Sarboran were supposed to have been president. Again, I have no objection to altering that list, so long as the contradictions are noted.

6. For all that you are complaining that I'm trying to consign anything that isn't from a novel to alternate continuities and give prejudicial weight to info from the "Destinyverse" novels, you are the one who took the step of actually segregating presidents from the RPGs from presidents from the novels in the "Federation presidents" template, not me. I'd consider that to be a much stronger act of continuity separation than anything I've done.

7. You are consistently misrepresenting my stance; noting that something is from an alternate continuity is not the same thing as saying they don't count, and to claim that it does is fundamentally dishonest. If, for instance, a new Abrams film comes out with Christopher Pike as President, I'm happy to list him in the Federation President sidebar as yet another incumbent; etc. I want to include it all, I just want the contradictory continuities they come from noted. -- Sci 05:23 7 MAR 2010 UTC

I think that a lot of what you propose and suppose we should be doing means adding a lot of unnecessary nonsense to all elements of these articles. I can see that we're reaching an impasse, i'd like to see some other users chime in about their views -- hopefully a consensus will help prevent our wiki from being mired in that kind of nonsense. -- Captain MKB 06:46, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's probably fair to say that what I'm proposing would require more work adding that information, but I really don't see how it can reasonably be avoided without creating misleading articles that imply harmony where none exists as the various Star Trek licensees get more and more fragmented in their Star Trek stories; the divergences between Star Trek Online and the novels, for instance, are only going to get bigger as time goes on. As for other views -- my prediction is that three or four people will come out against what I'm proposing, one or two will agree, and we'll have fundamental issues about this wiki decided by a small number of unusually active contributors yet again. -- Sci 05:50 7 MAR 2010 UTC

See again your personal interpetation of Star Trek continuity affecting your argument -- to imply harmony where none exists -- obviously there is harmony, its all part of the same Star Trek Franchise, all Federation characters all follow the same Federation, and all the licensees have at least some basis in canon. i think your personal bias is to think of the "more fragmented" Star Trek as being an absolute, and your missing all the little harmonies that tie it together. It's fine for us to imply harmony because it does exist, despite your denial of it. Even if the politics seem a little wierd compared to the other side of it, Bacco is part of the history of the STO... and relaunch novel era characters have appeared in comics, comics characters have appeared in novels, things from video games have made it into card games and comics and novels. There are just as many cases of the sources completely agreeing as there are of sources being slightly contradictory. I think we should reserve our treatment of the "fragmentation" you speak of for the handful of "big deals" like races and planets disappearing in one version, but not in another. And its definitely a minority. -- Captain MKB 07:00, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. If the Borg Invasion and Typhon Pact never happened in one continuity but did in another, then those are two different continuities, and the info from each is inherently different from info in another. That's just a fact. You can no more try to pass off info from one as being the same as info from another as you could an entry on Winston Churchill in the real world as the same as the Winston Churchill of a Harry Turtledove novel.

As for whether or not my opinion is in the minority, I don't think that's clear at all, since only a small minority of people ever seem to decide these sorts of issues in the first place. -- Sci 06:19 7 MAR 2010 UTC

Well, looks like you two had a pleasant morning... I'm sure I'm among that small group Sci refers to, and I agree, it's incredibly frustrating that more users don’t speak up on big and small issues. I've done things like adding the policy discussion listing to the top of the recent edits page to try and encourage it; but if people are unwilling to speak up, what are we to do? Decisions have to be made, and I guess it's those who care enough that have to make them.

Now, the issue at hand: This character exists only in the Star Trek Online continuity at the moment, a decade later than any novel has got to. So there is no contradictory information for this article, not a thing, so why is his succession box marked as an alternate continuity? Alternate to what? There are articles where it is necessary to split the information and explain the discontinuity. But this isn't one of them, there is no information to split, no discontinuity to explain!

As I keep trying to explain to Sci, if we treat every contradictory source as a distinct alternate continuity this database would barely function. It is not so neat and clear cut as novels vs Online, the novels regularly throw up discontinuities; Death in Winter suggests an alternate career for Sariel Rager to the Titan series, so I guess we better declare that an alternate continuity and make notes on every page information from it comes from to make it clear nothing in Death in Winter is compatible with the other novels, right? The NX-91001 has changed it's design since it's initial description on the Ships of the Line to how it appears in later Online tie-ins, so I guess we better discount the website from the Online continuity, they are clearly incompatible. I suppose at least without the backstory from the websites we don’t have to worry about the novels and Online gelling anymore, who knows what happens with the Borg and the Typhon Pact now we don’t accept The Path to 2409 as part of the Online continuity?! (Some of the preceding paragraph may have been sarcastic!)

Mike is exactly right, there are far more complimentary pieces of information between contradictory sources than there are outright contradictions to a minority of subjects (no matter how big a Borg Invasion might be) --8of5 12:50, March 7, 2010 (UTC)