Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Non-canon Star Trek

This is a survey to try to determine the Wikipedia consensus on non-canonical Star Trek material.

Background:
User:217.122.115.98 seems to be on a holy war to remove every mention of non-canonical Star Trek material from Wikipedia. He has done this on at least the Comparison of Star Trek crews, Rules of Acquisition and Federation President articles. Looking at the edit history, he seems to be the only one who's that much opposed to non-canon. He has written (unsigned) messages against non-canon on the talk pages, but no one has answered them.

I want to ask you your opinion on inclusion of non-canonical Star Trek material.

For an itemized list defining Trek canon and a guide to editing, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek.

Votes

All officially licensed non-canon material should be included

And why not?

The argument for including non-canon material on independent pages is obvious; if a Star Trek novel was a non-Star Trek novel then we would have no problem including it, if a Star Trek comic book was a non-Star Trek comic book we would document it gladly. Why then exclude things merely because they use the Star Trek Universe?
As for including non-canon material in regular Star Trek pages, we have plenty of references to non-canonical sequels in Waiting for Godot, for instance. Why is Star Trek any different? Wiki is not Rick Berman. Matthew Platts 21:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely an inclusionist (WP is not paper). My only requirement for included non-canon is that it's stated as such. Cburnett 12:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this. The question is not canon vs. not canon, it is official vs. fan-created. If a starship/race/character is in a published book or game, there is some "officialness" to it, making the subject valid. Fan-creations which have not been published anywhere except on fan-sites with fan-fiction however, is a different story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to 'official' non-canon, no to fanfiction. - ulayiti (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this; published material is notable. Vashti 12:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
If, and only if, it is clearly labeled as non-canon. Darrien 19:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As a fan of the finest published Star Trek novel of all time The Final Reflection, I most definitely favor including non-canon, as long as it is marked as such. Caerwine 02:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Dwellers in the Crucible is definitely the BSTNOAT. Vashti 07:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
No reason to exclude non-canon licensed and other notable related materials. However, the articles should be clear about what is "canon" and what is not, if a piece can be verified as non-canon, or cannot be verified that it is canon, the article should indicate its status, because clearly at least some people believe that the distinction is important. --Mysidia (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is non-canon but officially licensed should be included and marked as such (ie. it should be clearly stated that The XYZ is a starship from the ZXC series.... as applicable). Alphax ^τεχ 05:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is potentially fair-game and eligible for inclusion on Wp; however, only ‘sanctioned’ (licensed) canon, non-canon/fanon ST items should practically be included (e.g., reference books, novels, etc.) — those noted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, etc. — and noted (or not) as such. As for 'non-sanctioned' items (or those not of note), I'm neither here nor there; however, canonicity must be indicated ... besides: that's what the Star Trek wiki and (in general) the internet (WWW) are for. E Pluribus Anthony 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about especially notable non-canon characters/races/planets/ships should be included

1) As long as it is clearly stated that a reference comes from a novel, comic, RPG, etc, more info can only enrich an article. Makes for great trivia too.

2) There is precedent for info from non-canon sources becoming canon, like Vulcan references in ENT's Kir'shara trilogy as well as TAS refs on DS9.

3) Actors and series creators sometimes contribute to books, like Legends of the Ferengi or Star Trek: Star Charts. When creator intent is demonstrated outside of canon, it should still hold some weight.

4) There has been a concentrated effort to have continuity within the novels over the past few years. This integrity speaks for the value of including data points in related entries.--StAkAr Karnak 14:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only articles about entire non-canon series, not more specific articles, should be included

I think it's safe to vote here in my own survey. There is precedent in the Stargazer (novels), Starfleet Corps of Engineers and Star Trek: New Frontier articles. They've been up for over half a year and no one has wanted them to be deleted solely for non-canonicity. — JIP | Talk 08:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for articles about series of published books, boo for articles about one-off objects from those books. WP:FICT should apply, and this seems to be the closest option to the parameters set there. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only very few, especially notable non-canon series should be included

~~IIRC, Memory Alpha has a policy that only the very notable non-canon things should be included. Alphax ^τεχ 14:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- True, but this isn't Memory Alpha. Matthew Platts 12:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I'm withdrawing this vote. Alphax ^τεχ 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-canon material can be mentioned, but not have its own articles

non canon should be mentioned and should have any article any one wants to write about it, so long as it does not controvene any legal requirements. someof the best novel written have been non canon, and paramount does not seem to have any problem with collecting the royalties from this source, so why not

Wikipedia should not acknowledge the existence of non-canon material at all