Forum:TC:Star Trek articles

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Star Trek articles

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete the Star Trek articles as fanon. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek articles

Now, that the period of unhealthy activity around those articles is over, I think it is time to renew a civilized discussion, picking up where the previous one ended. It is obvious that many of our visitors are shocked with those articles being present on Wookieepedia, just look at the Talk:Jean-Luc Picard and Talk:Mirror, Mirror. Recently, we even had an unfortunate accident, which resulted in a newcomer being banned and all of those aritcles being fully-protected. It also attracted attention to this slippery topic on both the starwars.com and TheForce.net message boards. And believe me, I wouldn't risk getting into more trouble for this if not for the 10 words that were almost pressed out of Leeland Chee.

Before we go any further, please familiarize youself with the actual article in question. I got the impression that many of controversialists about this topic aren't even aware of the article's nature:

  • Page 1
  • [(Link removed due to Wikia's spam protection filter; check page history for links) Page 2]
  • [(Link removed due to Wikia's spam protection filter; check page history for links) Page 3]
  • [(Link removed due to Wikia's spam protection filter; check page history for links) Page 4]
  • [(Link removed due to Wikia's spam protection filter; check page history for links) Page 5]

As you might have noticed, this Mirror, Mirror article is unlike other "ambiguous" articles from Challenge or Polyhedron. While articles from those 2 magazines are actual RPG adventures, written from IU perspective but possibly unlicesned, the InQuest 39 article doesn't deal with the universe at all. It deals with the card game. On the very first page the authors admit that Decipher didn't plan to mix the universes - they did. And then they go straight to presenting their 8 dream cards and discussing how they might affect the gameplay. Some of you may mistake the single line "Transported to a galaxy far, far away, Picard and company find a new frontier to explore - and a new enemy in the Empire" for an IU-basis for the crossover. But let's read further, on page 4 we see the line "If Emperor Palpatine discovered a gateway to another galaxy..." which makes it clear this is all no more that a "What If?" scenario.

Additionally, all information in the articles like Mars or Sergey Rozhenko comes from the lore of those cards, not the article itself. Now, we as sure as Hell consider the lore of all cards from all Star Wars games to be canonical, yes, except for the fact that those 8 cards from the article were never printed. Those cards do not exist in any Star Wars game, so how can they be anything more than dream cards, I do not know.

Now, to Chee's comment. What the man said, was:

"I'm unaware of Inquest ever being an official Star Wars licensee."
―Leeland Chee[src]

For Heaven's sake, I wish he was a bit more concrete. Yes, he did not say Inquest was unlicensed, he said he doesn't know if it was. But hold on a minute. He's not just some guy, he's the Keeper of the Holocron. If he doesn't know if the material is licensed, he probably wouldn't have in his database, correct? And this is indeed supported by the fact that Star Trek-related stuff is not in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia: if it was present in the Holocron, it would be in TCSWE just like anything else.

We were also fortunate to receive additional clarification from Mr. Nathan Butler. That's we said (yeah, lots of text, but it's relevant):

"InQuest did that kind of "what if" stuff all the time. There was never any license implied. They were just covering the games and came up with suggestions on fun ways to play, sort of like Wizard pitting comic characters against each other or video game websites suggesting two different franchises butt heads."
―Nathan Butler[src]
"The InQuest article in question is not a licensed work. The *cards* are, but the article *about* the cards is not. In fact, the article is basically "paid fans" of the game, members of the InQuest staff, writing about strategies, nifty little ideas for crossovers, and the like, for love of the game (and the Trek CCG). The *idea* of a crossover with SW/ST is basically a "fanon" concept, and would be such *if* the writers of the article had created a story from it, rather than discussing gameplay strategies and tweaks to merge the two games.
Since it is not licensed in any form, the article cannot be any form of Canon, not even N-Canon, hence no G, C, T, S, or N designation. On the other hand, it is not a work of unlicensed fiction (fan fiction, so to speak), since it is not a fiction tale, so it is not "fanon," either. It was also published legally, which lends credence to the article's "wild ideas" not being fanon, technically.
If I were writing for, say, Time Magazine, and I wrote a review of TPM, claiming it was a poor film, and then I spent part of the article talking about how the film could have integrated more EU, or perhaps how the film could have been better integrated with the rest of the Prequel Trilogy so as to not feel like an oddball film, then I would be writing a very similar, fair use article to what InQuest did with the "Mirror, Mirror" article."
―Nathan Butler[src]

So, what's the man said to us is that the article and the stuff in it is non even Non-canon, it's just an article. And let's allow some common sence, people, even if it was licensed, the nature of the article itself would make in non-canon, just like with the Visions of the Blade, Into the Great Unknown, or even Into the Garbage Chute, Flyboy. The latter one is a very good example: Wizards posted several miniature scenarios that mix characters from various eras or exploit a 'What If?" approach to the universe. Even though posted on their website among canonical stuff, those scenarios are infinities at best.

So, let's sum it up. Arguments for deletion as being unlicensed fanon are:

  1. The nature of the article. It deals with the game mechanics and doesn't have a single IU line.
  2. We cannon use lore of the cards that never saw print.
  3. The article is pure 'What If?" and speculation. We don't deal with that.
  4. Lucasfilm would never authorize Star Wars/Star Trek crossover simply because they have no license to Star Trek (yeah).
  5. Chee's words.
  6. Notable absence of the material in question from the TCSWE.
  7. Butler's explanation.
  8. It is simply wrong for Wookieepedia to confuse readers, stating that an IU connection between Star Wars and Star Trek exists, while it does not.

Arguments for keeping as it is (I'll save myself some future time and answer to the ones that have been already given elsewhere, ok?):

  1. Chee didn't say it wasn't official, he said he wasn't aware of it being licensed
  2. Inquest may sue us if we're wrong!
    • Ridiculous. If Lucasfilm does not care about mistakes we as the wikia make (and we do make some), then some magazine certainly wouldn't care either.
  3. Nathan Butler is nobody
    • Sorry, but I have to disagree. The guy has written at least one canonical comic story that passed LFL's approval, which means that he has a better idea of how the process of licensing in LFL works, than we do.
  4. Unlicensed means ambig
    • Here comes the tricky one. The way I always saw it, ambig means that we do not know if it was licensed or not. Thousands and thousands of articles about SW movies, games and books were published in various newspapers, magazines and websites all over the world. They do not need the license to write about Star Wars in any form. Also, the whole term "ambiguously canon" is used exclusively on Wookieepedia, it's not in Holocron or anywhere else. Ambig means we do not have info, but once we do, it's either licenced and G/T/C/S or even N-canon, or it's unlicensed fanon or "fair use".
  5. The article is meant to be a serious look at a cross-over
    • Wrong. The article itself states that Decipher didn't authorize it, Chee's comment means that LFL also didn't authorize it. It's just some game writers creating dream cards for fun.
  6. We don't merge the content of other ambiguous sources into one page
    • It's because stuff from RPG's may be canonized by other sources - look at Prophets of the Dark Side for example. A Star Trek crossover, however, will never be. Besides, it's not ambigous anymore.

So, here we come to the vote, which will affect all of the Star Trek articles listed on the Mirror, Mirror page under appearances section. I really hope you that you didn't skip all of the above. MauserComlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete as fanon

  1. MauserComlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is a Star Wars wiki, not Star Trek JangFett Talk 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Nicely summed up Mauser. I had a look on the Memory Alpha wiki and there was no reference of InQuest Gamer 39 there at all. This stuff belongs on that wiki more than it does here and they don't have the publication as an article there. I wholy agree with the arguments for deletion. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Though I think Mirror, Mirror should be kept (Edit: and expanded)... don't merge those so-called "IU" articles in. - Esjs(Talk) 15:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Delete—including Mirror, Mirror—per Jang and Nayayen. The final straw for me, in addition to everything Mauser said above, is that at the very beginning of the article, the guy that wrote it needs to learn that a "cannon" goes boom, just like these articles will do soon. That error would never have made it past Lucasfilm or whoever licenses Star Trek (and don't tell me who because I don't care who), which is final proof for me that these are unlicensed. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Please for the love of the Force, do not give them individual articles anymore that might creep up on Force lovers here. And there's really not anything relevant to merge to the Mirror, Mirror article either. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Arguments 6, 7, and 8 for deletion are rather weak, but the fact that these cards were never printed makes them less notable than fan sites we've deleted. A random gaming magazine talking about crossovers and ways to possibly play is not worth an article on Wookieepedia, especially since there's no way that was licensed. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson (Talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. The Broox 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. This is a tough one. Although I personally have nothing against the existence of these articles, and even at one point wanted to try and GA a couple of them, I'm voting for deletion. Mainly because of Butler's explanation. He actually has a point there. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. The fact that Leland is continually expected to prove a negative before we can get rid of these obviously unauthorized articles never ceases to amaze me. The burden of proof isn't on him, folks. jSarek 11:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Ignoring irrelevancies like absence from the CSWE, misspellings in the article, and whether we should pay more attention to Nathan Butler because he's been published or treat him as just another fan, the fact that Leland Chee has no record of InQuest ever being licensed together with the article itself being an intentionally non-canon "what-if" article just as Butler describes leads me to believe we should have at most one article from Mirror, Mirror material. Since this proposal would leave that article around in some form, I'll put my vote here. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Yeah, noncanon crossover what-ifs, licensed or not, don't need to spawn articles on the crossover material. Havac 01:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. It sounds like anyone who has the authority to qualify this article as relevant won't touch it with a pole of indeterminate length, and those who want to qualify it as relevant don't have the authority to do so. That tells me something. Dangerdan97 14:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Per Silly Dan. And I would like to again stress the importance of not using the "it's not in the CSWE" argument. There are many characters, events, places, etc. that are canon, but have not been included in the CSWE. Cylka-talk- 03:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. If in doubt, take it out. QuentinGeorge 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, but merge all info into the Mirror, Mirror article

Keep as it is

  1. 1: Nathan Butler is, for all intents and purposes, nobody. 2: You're trying to do an end run around the system because Leland Chee won't give the answer you want, which I find pathetic. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Just because something isn't in TCSWE, doesn't mean it isn't canon. There are many canonical characters, locations, organizations, etc that aren't included in TCSWE but can be considered canon (for example, the majority of the Living Force campaign) --Jinzler 18:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 03:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. I need a name (Complain here) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable discussion

  • Please, do not add any other vote option. Three is more than we need already. MauserComlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For whoever owns a copy of the magazine in which this article is printed: in the publication and copyright info for the magazine, is there any text suggesting the article had Lucasfilm involvement in any way? For instance, my copy of Polyhedron 157 (which, as part of a double issue with Dungeon 98, has its copyright info listed under that magazine) has small print that specifically says:

    Star Wars and Lucasfilm are registered trademarks of Lucasfilm Ltd. "I, Jensaarai" (pages XX-XX [sic]) and "Starships of the Galaxy" (pages XX-XX [sic]) ©2003 Lucasfilm Ltd. All rights reserved.

    Does the issue of InQuest have any text like the latter part of that, clearly stating the copyright status of the article as Lucasfilm's? jSarek 11:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Will check after a day or so. MauserComlink 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Didn't find anything similiar. The only copyrigth info present is for InQuest itself and it's publisher (Page 4). MauserComlink 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Doesn't everyone that decides to use LFL material need to give credits and rights to LFL, regardless of whether or not the material they're using is canon? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)