Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Fan fiction

36,872pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Fan fictionEdit

There have ben numerous instances of "fan fiction" style publications being mentioned here -- some discussions:

Fan productions (moved from reference desk)Edit

Since I have added an article on "fanon", do I need to include several Star Trek fan series and fan films? If not, where should I add Star Trek related fanon material?

Not on MA, I'm afraid. Please read our Memory Alpha:Resource policy... -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The future of Memory-Alpha.Org Edit

Memory-Alpha.Org will run out of canon soon. The reason Memory-Alpha.Org sticks to canon is because we could barely keep up with canon. This is no longer true. We have an inexhaustible store of Star Trek as yet untapped:

Noncanon. We could write articles about fanfiction (we should not allow fanfiction itself because it would cause people searching the encyclpædia to get stories instead of technical articles). We can include speculation such as the the Xindispecies, being so obviously related, yet representing five families, four classes and two or three phyla (¿are the Aquatics chordates?) must be the products of genetic engineering. We could start an article about the eternal favorite of Star Trek Versus Star Wars (a single Imperator-Classstardestroyer could easily defeat a Borgcube).

This is not the end. We just have to broaden our mandate. A few months ago, Someone started an article about the respectful but hilariously satirical STAR WREK — The best 'Star Trek' parody since 'The Next Generation'! The response was that at the time we could not broaden our mandate with about two dozen canonepisodes of Enterprise for processing an year to process. That certainly was true at the time; but now however, we literally have nothing else to do but create a synopsis for every character of STAR WREK . — Ŭalabio‽ 04:16, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to make your text so bulky? (I've since tightened it up). Anyway, "Soon"? I don't see that we are anywhere near running out of canon anytime "soon". So without giving an opinion on anything else other than that, I think this conversation is overly premature. Other than that, I don't like this idea at all. Lets get to point "B" before we start heading for point "C". --Alan del Beccio 04:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We "literally" have plenty more to do, so i say no -- the logistics (not to mention the copyright problems) are kind of mind boggling. I'd rather not disrupt the achievement of a canon database (our ultimate goal) by mixing the data with fan fiction and parodies (completely irrelevant, in my opinion).
I like non-canon, if you'd like, see how pages on novels and comics could be expanded -- I think its an important part of Memory Alpha. Perhaps suggest a website directory that we could police and monitor, to link to gaming or creative sites that are outside of our parameters.
I won't allow this site to be turned into a commercial for cheap knockoffs of Star Trek when theres a perfectly good original series, its spinoffs and movies and tied in licensed media like collecible publications. I'm not a fan of much stuff that Joe Schmoe ran off in his garage, or put on his website -- expecially if we are talking about a commercial venture to capitalize on Star Trek. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:37, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Check here to see how much still needs to be done! --T smitts 04:43, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
MA definitely won't "run out of canon" soon. There's still much to write about, and even more to "write better" about. Until both has happened, there's no need to discuss the possible inclusion of fan-fiction and other unofficial material. -- Cid Highwind 09:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*lol* Look at this or this, that's work for years... --Porthos 10:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, 747 stubs and 183 incomplete articles...out of the current 36,872 articles, that means roughly 6% of the content we have in M/A still needs some sort of attention, and that doesnt even count what hasn't be written yet. --Alan del Beccio 18:14, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This is why I thought "Memory Alpha:Refit of the Week" was a great idea, but apparently no one was interested, which is indicative of the larger problem: Most of the easiest stuff has been covered, and people get lazy. Even once we finish cleaning up things like the technobabble no one actually understands or the actor pages where no one's sure what to add, I think there are more encyclopedic (but also more difficult) things to write about, such as Ethics and Politics of the Klingon Empire. Weyoun 18:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey Alan, dont be so cynical. The reason why Memory Alpha is cool is because everybody contributes.
  • How am I being cynical, unsigned user, by simply stating the facts? --Alan del Beccio 18:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I thought about Memory-Alpha, and if it would run out of material after some time. But we still have LOTS of work to do, not to mention tons of episode reviews (And with Star Trek magazines, new information is always released every month). Then, of course, new books are always coming out, and TONS of books don't have a page here. So there is still lots of work ahead! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Against - Not that this vote is really needed ;-) I very much DON'T like this idea. Fan fiction is just ridiculous, I could write a story right now with references out the BAK, and we'd be making ridiculous articles for years. We clearly have more articles to make, and if it runs out, we'll simply find more. I know many episode summaries that could use a lot of work, and if not work, improvement. Among other things, their "references" are ridiculously small. Not to mention the many actors and actresses we have to do. Which are constantly being added to. A movie may be coming out in the coming years. But yes, if all goes well, we'll run out of canon material, which means we'll have to work on the pages for all those novels that could use work, the comic books, and many others. I don't think we need to worry about running out of articles yet, and when we do, I will strongly oppose the includinh of fan fiction and the kinds of speculation that were referred. - AJHalliwell 00:33, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Also Strongly Against - I personally don't read the fan fiction. Although some of it is good, some of it is garbage. I'd hate to come here to read about some topic and have to dig through piles of minutia that's completely irrelevant and non-canon to me. Perhaps an entire second site called "Memory Beta" should be set up with that stuff, so people can read it and others can enjoy MA without having to deal with it.
And even when we run out of articles, there are always ways for improvement. For example, take a look at the Amanda Rogers page (and there's even 4 articles linked to it which aren't done). A one-timer Star Trek appearance/mention, and the article is quite expansive and detailed. A number of character pages could have the same amount of detail (If not more) in the future. Additionally, there will always be something new found or observed, especially with background information (stuff on LCARS displays especially). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:59, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How about the New Voyages (the professional-quality fan-produced extension of TOS)? Normally I wouldn't suggest non-canon, but since it has the endorsement of Gene Roddenberry's son and the cooperation of original TOS actors (like Walter Koenig) and writers (like D.C. Fontana), maybe data from that series could be added?
EmiOfBrie 23:28, 4 Nov 2005 (CST)
This topic was already discussed previously, and the idea was rejected. Click here to learn more. --From Andoria with Love 05:45, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Fan fiction reference worksEdit

I separated several "bootleg" publications into a separate list on reference works -- is something that ws published without the consent of the Star Trek franchise owners, writers and production staff really have anything to do with Star Trek?

In the past we've deleted or removed links to these(such as USS Enterprise Officer's Manual, considering them outside of MA's scope -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

In MA/de we had just a month of conversation what to do with unlicensed games. We came to an agreement to create de:Fan-Rollenspiele where all the individiual games would be stored, as we already started on de:Fanfiction. So these books should be treated likewise and create "fan fiction books" (or alike), but keep the redirects. What comes to my mind is that the page might need to subdivided a lot (technical manuals, episode guides, other) just by looking at my own collection. -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In accordance with the German edit, created the page "fan fiction" to serve as top-level in this matter. "Fan films" has also been created without content, because of problems listed below. Films with Walter Koenig and Eddie Paskey are obviously relevant, but how irrelevant would they have to be to not be listed/be removed from that list. Tough questions.
Frankly, i created it just to keep people from listing garbage "bootleg" tech manuals in reference works -- a lot of those books, besides being illegally (or "semi-legally") published, aren't worth much of the paper they are printed on, however, some were written by young Trek artists, and the fanzine scene is a fascinating scene to research -- but soon we'll have to administrate the removal of explicit slash fiction sources, so expect bumps.
It'll be good to keep such pursuits separate from our main articles on novels, etc, as well as separate from our articles on canon -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Try http://startrek.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page for non-canon information Keras 23:30, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

links Edit

I don't think the external links here are such a good idea. Before long, every sim group will be wanting to add their website on. -AJHalliwell 05:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should this exist?Edit

Should there be pages for Non-canon Trek such as this? If so, we should add others too, such as Hidden Frontier. zsingaya 18:10, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think the boys at "New Voyages" are going to try to claim that they're canon. --DNJimerson 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal publicationsEdit

should we define some sort of notation for books that were published without the consent of Paramount Pictures (i.e. illegally)? technically, this isn't a Star Trek book at all, its fan fiction. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Ten ForwardEdit

Star Trek: New Voyages

OK. No canon and fan made.

But where should we place it?

-- MstrControl 01:24, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is something we're going to be writing more than a few sentences on at MA (in fact, another admin flat out rejected the idea of listing fan films, in the previous subsection).
We are about everything "having to do with Star Trek", but our mandate and copyright policy realistically only include things licensed by Star Trek -- fan fiction is made without their approval, and isnt legally allowed to be bought or sold with the name "Star Trek" -- seems to me like its outside of our jurisdiction (by the way, i feel several other articles you've made , "Starfleet Dynamics" and such, also do not belong on Memory Alpha - -because some such books were printed illegally without Paramount's permission. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
A section on fan films, the way the main page on the French MA does it, would be a great idea. "Fan films" would be a nice addition to MA. Weyoun 02:54, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Another problem that was brought up while discussing similar list pages in the past ist: "Which fan films [/websites/spoofs/...] should this list include?" Who decides what is and what isn't a valid addition to that list? We don't want to become MA an advertising space for anyone able to hold a camera (or thinks he is funny using other material). -- Cid Highwind 12:17, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
The admin of the site, of course, the same person who makes all of those decissions. Let's face it, the Animated Series, Star Trek: V and Threshold were all considered non-canon by Star Trek staff, yet they are included. What is to be included is entirely subjective. --Keras

Yes Edit

New Voyages is supported by Paramount, and it should be tracked in the same sense. Not only to keep fans interested in it, but it would be a great resource. I'm a big fan of the New Voyages, and they're bringing in actors that appeared on the "real" show. It's every bit as "real" as the others. It's just not being paid for by corporations / advertisers in the same sense as everyone is used to.

Supported? Try "allowed". Our New Voyages info is located at the article called "fan films". -- Captain M.K.B. 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a bunch of guys in a barn. Until they're on the air under official status, they're just another set of fan films. --DNJimerson 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They should be recognized by MA. It's the dream of any one of us to do what they're doing, and they have authorization from Paramount, as well as official Trek folk like Doug Drexler, Walter Koenig, George Takei, and D.C. Fontana. Why not have an article for them? Recognize and respect their accomplishments in the fan community AS fans, not as dogmatic keepers of canon.

We've already decided that unofficial materials do not get their own articles. This has nothing to do with being "keepers of canon", as you say; if they were allowed, they'd be restricted to the same meta-Trek universe p.o.v. with which articles based on novels are written - meaning they would still be non-canon, but we can still write about them. Unlike the novels, however, the fan films are not owned by Paramount. If, on the other hand, you mean accepting the fan films as canon, then that, my friend, is way out of the question. As stated above, Paramount may authorize the films' productions, but they do not license them: that is why we don't create articles for individual fan films. --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I said nothing about accepting the series as canon. This may be as close as we'll get to an official work for some time, why don't you just create a note at the top of the page or in a sidebar proclaiming it's not official? It's a fan SERIES, not an individual film, with official Trek contributors actively participating into giving it life. You are acting as keepers of Dogma by taking something like this so incredibly seriously. I'd heed Shatner's SNL proclamation if I were you.

Uh-huh... well, then, being the "keepers of Dogma" that we are, the answer's still no. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck guys! I started a Wikipedia article on Star Trek, fan made productions and just as you wonder if it should be allowed here because it isn't canon and which should be allowed and which not, we have the problem of "Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball" and notability <ptui>. My two strips of Latinum?
- Fan films are a fan phenomena and should be grouped with them
- If you decide against the article, at least consider a list of links
- Don't pick and choose: if it has been produced it deserves a mention
- Major projects deserve at least a paragraph. My list would be New Voyages, Exeter, Hidden Frontier, Stone Trek, Borg War, TOTSF
- Produced projects; everything else shown on our Wiki page, help yourself
- Historical notable projects are Raumschiff Highlander, Borg Wars (German series), Uss Angeles, Redshirt filmette (I'm going to regret that), Yesterday's Essex, Tomorrow's Command
- Post production notables are Das Vermachtnis, Intrepid,
- Pre-Productions ... the list is way too big and there are some really good groups.--Kirok 10:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Shran, I have a problem with your reasons for keeping things like New Voyages out. As you put it, it's not owned by Paramount. I was not aware that this site was merely an advertising mechanism.

Let's just focus on New Voyages for now, and leave the other fan-made stuff for later. It really is close as damn to canon; they've got original actors, they're sticking to the original setting, and they've even put a hell of a lot of effort into making it look just right. Are you telling me that we're going to ignore all of this, just because Paramount aren't making a profit off it?

If you are, then I think you seriously need to reconsider your reasons for writing on MA. - Spatula 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where New Voyages rates any higher than the other fan-made films. Everyone gets their own interpretation of Trek, to be sure, but sorry -- Mr. Bad Hair Guy ain't never gonna be "real" Kirk. They don't get to take over the classic characters and decide their futures without sanction.--DNJimerson 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did say I was only using NV as an example, although it's probably one of the best examples available. I don't quite follow what you mean by "taking over" the classic characters. William Shatner, in his own words, is not Kirk. The characters are not real, they are totally abstract. As such, they can't really be 'owned'. And I don't mean Paramount's legal ownership, I'm talking about the ability of anyone to use the characters effectively. NV is just as good as the original series (and better, by several technical meassures), so why do you insist that it's any less Trek? - Spatula 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Because however pretty it may or may not be, it's still fan fiction.--DNJimerson 02:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Hollywood studios sanctioning New Voyages or Paramount is not? To be honest, I have to come down on the side of Paramount is not on this one. Here's why.... First of all, any trademark holder is required by law to vigorously enforce their trademark in court or risk losing it. By letting things "slide", any 'trademark' infringer can, as a defense, claim inconsistent enforcement of copyright. In other words, it's the, "Why are you just picking on me?" defense. And that defense has been known to work. That's why major trademark holders like Paramount, Disney, Warner Brothers, and the rest are so vigilant and resolute about protecting their intellectual property legally. Usually, all that is required is a "cease and desist" order. Sometimes, if significant money has been made by someone without the rights, the copyright owner demands to be paid the revenue which was collected by the offending party. If it needs to go to court, most times the case is settled before it ever goes to a judge. (It's cheaper to just pay the settlement to the copyright holder than to finance a full legal battle, even if you win...which most times you won't.)

It's easy to look at Paramount as the big, bad wolf and this artist as a hard-working, well-meaning victim. But the law is supposed to be blind to wealth and social status. And in the eyes of our civil justice system, this artist (I should say allegedly) violated the law and profited off of a trademark and copyright that he did not own. An example that can be stated that: >>[The artist's] name is James Cukr and he has done licensed artwork from Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, Babylon 5, Lost in Space, Godzilla, X-Men, Xena and several other properties. Since the company he did the print for, Starbase 1, was a licensee he assumed his painting was legal but rather than sue a sub-contractor that makes them money, Paramount went after the poor artist instead. That's their style.>>> Damn right! And if this James Cukr has done licensed artwork before, then he should frickin' know better! First of all, Starbase 1 has purchased a license from Viacom Consumer Products (Paramount) to distribute and sell Star Trek themed coffee (and, I believe, bottled water as well). What if Starbase 1 suddenly started selling Star Trek T-shirts and coffee mugs to go along with their coffee? Well, that's another license and it costs more money. Sorry, but that's the rules of the sandbox if you want to play in it. The same would be true if Starbase 1 took one of their graphical Star Trek images from their packaging and offered it as a special poster for sale. A poster would be a separate license which Starbase 1 would have to pay for. If they--as an official licensee--would have to pay a separate licensing fee to sell a poster, then why would this artist, James Cukr (pronounced "sooUker"), not have to pay it as well? Cukr arguement? He painted the artwork for a licensee (Starbase 1) and therefore assumed the artwork was licensed and he could sell it. And the fact is, this guy should know better!!! He's done countless sci-fi paintings (really excellent ones!), and most of them are, in fact, licensed. However, they're licensed by other companies who sell them (and give him part of the profits). These companies pay Viacom the licensing fees and a percentage of the sale price. If the process stopped there, all would be fine. But no! James had to get entrepeneurial and start selling the pieces directly on his own Web site. In other words, he was getting full price and giving nothing to Viacom. That's illegal. And this guy isn't just selling some nice xeroxed printouts for $10 apiece. Uh uh. His stuff goes for thousands of dollars a painting! He's making big bucks off his stuff, cutting Viacom out of the deal. Their lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages from this guy, which is approximately the cost of a license to begin with. How do I know all this about Jame Cukr? Simple: I looked it up on the Internet. (http://www.denverpost.com/business S0U/biz0803f.htm)

Here's what a more objective periodical ("The Denver Post") had to say on the story: "...Paramount said it had a licensing arrangement with a company called Hasson Fine Arts Corp., now known as Lightspeed Fine Arts Inc., through which Cukr created several paintings depicting characters and other Star Trek images. But, it said, it has no such arrangement for the four additional paintings and prints Cukr offers on his Web site. The complaint also says Cukr sells the paintings or posters at Star Trek conventions throughout the country, peddling the original paintings for $750 to $9,500 each. The infringing works were intended to, and in fact do, copy and exploit the essential creative elements of the Star Trek properties in order to trade upon the popularity and success of those properties,' the complaint said." The lawsuit was filed back in August. I have no idea what's happened since except that James has obeyed the cease and desist order and stopped selling the specific paintings Paramount was suing him over. But he claims with his fist in the air that he has a right to sell the paintings because they are his original work. He painted them; they're his original work to sell. Which sounds like Rob Caves' old arguement about the Angeles and Hidden Frontier videos. If James' arguement were sound, then a musician could record an original version of "Born to Run" using his own instruments, and singing the lyrics himself, and then sell the recording for a profit, giving nothing to Bruce Sprinsteen who wrote the song in the first place. After all, the musician recorded the song himself, and he used different instruments than Springsteen, and he has a different voice. This new recording is the original work of this musician and he should have a right to sell it. Sorry. It don't work that way...as James Cukr is learning right now. And that's why fans need to be careful when creating derivative works from Star Trek. If you're not selling it, you're usually all right. But you always have to be careful and respect the fact that you're playing in someone else's sandbox, the sandbox is big, and there's lots of rules. So why play in it? 'Cause it's cool and fun and there's no other sandbox like it in the universe. That's why we're all here. Have fun, play...but play wisely. Okay, I'm done with the soapbox now. USS Angeles

Since this game was not licensed by Paramount, this article may very well not be acceptable on this site in its current location. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is correct. Either merge (with what, though?), or delete. -- Cid Highwind 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Why? Does this site have some sort of deal with Paramount? I'm just curious. If it's got issues, I'll just post it on Wikipedia instead. -- User:LancasterII
If it wasn't licensed by Paramount, that means it is not an official Star Trek product; in other words, it's fanon, which is something we don't allow here, at least not on its own. Moving this to a list of unofficial or fan-created games is best. --From Andoria with Love 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Its the result of the founding concepts of MA merged with modern consensus of how this site should work. We claim to have aims of "everything about Star Trek" -- but our primary article base is from "canon" -- things in the POV of someone "inside" Star Trek Universe itself, a place where phasers and Vulcans are real. We also feature lists of articles about licensed products, with lists of references in them, kept separate from our canon database. We've decided to limit articles about comics, games, collectibles, reference works and novels to products that are legally sold bearing the name "Star Trek", usually under a licensing process by Paramount Pictures.
However, self-published or not, Paramount has been known to request sites selling fan-publications be shut down, even if they allow not-for-profit sites like ours to exist, through fair-use, for review purposes. We have a copyright policy claiming we are not republishing their content for profit -- however, many out-of-publication pieces of "fan fiction" have "ASIN" or "ISBN" numbers that can be added to their articles and be used to order the product through a seller site, even if they were pulled from publication or self-published. This isn't a great concern, i've rarely heard of Paramount shutting down fan ventures, but i have heard of it happening, and doesn't seem worth the trouble of publicly associating with (except maybe to link to a (not-for-profit also) wiki about "fan published" Trek, http://stexpanded.wikicities.com ).
The greatest degree of difficulty with fan publications is that they are numerous -- we started out with a wiki about 700+ episodes and movies, then we expanded to at least define the 1000+ other publications that are official -- if we started an article about every fan-publication ever, we'd probably be talking about 10,000 more subjects, if not an order of magnitude more articles possible if they were ever encompassed into our POV and fully fleshed out. Since this would be a lot of extra material, some of it not bearing the name "Star Trek", that would take away from our canon database, we've drawn the line here. Perhaps a link to a site about this in our fan gaming section would be more appropo with our current atmosphere here. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! That sounds pretty logical. Well I'll leave it to the gents (and gals!) who run this fair site to decide; just gimme a heads up if you decide to knock it out of existance so I can copy the content and post it on Wikipedia instead. Thanks a lot!:) -- User:LancasterII
I suggest we "merge" this into the article called "fan gaming". this will probably involve editing the text so it takes up less space. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert, possible copyvio Edit

I removed the following additions to the fan films page:

Star Trek: The Pepsi GenerationEdit

'Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation

"Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation".
A live action comedic shot 'film to tape' in Washington state (in the 80's) by Ryan K. Johnson [1]. The story explores the Star Trek TNG crew. The starship crew seeks out new the Ferrari alien lifeform and the great taste of Pepsi. Pun dialogue and other humorous scenes are included. One of the most memorable video characters is a very convincing Look alike fan performer playing 'Captain Pic-a-Card'.

Yesterday's ESSEX, Tomorrow's CommandEdit

Yesterday's Essex, Tomorrow's Command

This live action video drama was produced in New Zealand in 1993. Produced by Essex Productions, Medalstone Pictures and the Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand or Stella Nova , it takes place in the TNG age, but has a plot twist that allowed a full TOS Constitution Class bridge set to be featured with Klingon and Ferengi plot complications. This story celebrates the constitution class starship centenary at planet Pastel 5, but a ship's distress call causes aliens to interfere. Some USS Essex video crewmembers are Internet available for their video production recollections[2]. Some this video's main production crew moved into the professional film industry ranks by working on the Lord of the rings trilogy.

The REDSHIRT Filmette SeriesEdit

The REDSHIRT Filmette Series

The REDSHIRT Filmette Series, 'Life Insurance' #1 
A southern California live action 'filmette/short' video series shot by the volunteers and Genovese Cine Productions 2000 [3]. This filmette series explores the TOS redshirt traditions with comedic parody. **Two additional filmettes are in current production. Its most memorable character is the lead fan actor playing the bewildered redshirt crewman. This VHS tape series has been debuted at many major scifi conventions. Several west coast sci-fi conventions have screened this video.[4] Some other events that screened this video are Shoreleave Con [5] in USA and the video has been premiered through European clubs like the International Science Fiction Federation [6].Pat1 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This text is copied from http://experts.about.com/e/s/st/Star_Trek,_other_storylines.htm. There is also a discussion about the removal of the Redshirts series info from Wikipedia at wikipedia:User talk:Netwriter. Looks like it got rather nasty there. There's also the issue of whether these pass the Google test or not. -- Renegade54 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd Edit

"Star Trek: New Voyages" Edit

Fan films do not get there own articles, they get an entry in the "fan films" article. New Voyages already has an entry there. This might be a candidate for immediate deletion. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The page was deleted twice, once by Captain Mike (non-canon, non-valid, voted for deletion after 2+ days on VfD) 4 September 2005, second time by me (non canon, voted to delete on 4 September 2005; speedy delete candidate per #6) 6 October 2005. However something must be done to prevent the page being created again. I vote redirect and lock -- Kobi 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and lock and smile --Alan del Beccio 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect it, lock it, and forget it! - AJ Halliwell 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already redirected this, btw, since it had already been previously deleted. --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men Edit

Star Trek
Of Gods and Men

Merge with "Fan films" and Delete. As per our usual argument against fan films getting their own article, no matter how many Star Trek actors appear in it... (For the record, wouldn't this be listed under "Of Gods..." not "Star Trek: Of Gods..."?) - AJ Halliwell 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete, as per how we have done this in the past. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • merge, and at best redirect as per the new voyages that was done earlier this week. -- Sulfur 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd Edit

As Heartless as I don't want to sound, this doesn't seem like it belongs on MA. I understand it's clearly a heavy parody of Star Trek (not subtle in the least bit by the way) but as at least one of the covers advertises: An Unauthorized Parody. I can see us having a section of it, on the parody page, and links to another site dedicated to it if possible: but having an entire series guide seems ridiculous! Can we "trans-wiki" (move) this to a Wikipedia article, and just link to that? - AJ Halliwell 09:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the parodies page is getting rather deep with articles-- currently 33 different subsections. I wonder if we should start disassembling it into Star Trek parodies (television) (or rather yet, separate the cartoon tv parodies from the live action tv parodies), Star Trek parodies (films), and Star Trek parodies of literature, or comics or novels or however you want to put it, then perhaps merge this with that. --Alan del Beccio 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've moved this to "Star Trek parodies (Star Wreck)" -- would this be a good contrivance to split up the growing parody page? -- Captain M.K.B. 06:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to Star Trek parodies (literature) or something similar as Alan suggested, with any other book parodies currently on the Star Trek parodies page moved there. Likewise, the parodies page should be seperated into movies, television, etc. --From Andoria with Love 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Original game Edit

Why no reference to the original Trek fan game, the text game from the 1970s and its graphical variant? --69.11.248.65 23:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are the episodes for Star Trek: Of Gods And Men!?Edit

  • Ok, so, I go to on www.StarTrekOfGodsAndMen.com and I all I see is the all new new trailer! I thought Episode 1, of the 3 part mini-series, was coming out in December of 2006! Can someone help me clear this up!? --Captain Zman 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably a better question to ask them then us. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And it just got delayed yet again... :o/ --dllu 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: FrontiersEdit

I removed the info on 'Star Trek: Frontiers', since it is a script-based fan fic and not a fan film. Instead, there is an article about it on the fan fiction page --Mada101 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Startrek-BaycbEdit

moved from talk:Startrek-Baycb

This should be merged with "fan gaming", because that is what it is. Non-canon stuff like this does not get its own article. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So are we now allowing all rpg games and sites? Cuz I have a fan role playing website I started last week, perhaps I should add it to that article as well....--Alan del Beccio 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You want to delete it, that is fine, nominate it. All I was doing was trying to put this in the right place if it is going to be here at all. No reason to be an ass about it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Star Trek technical manualsEdit

This page already exists as reference works. --Alan del Beccio 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that most of the releases listed here are fanon works. Just as an aside. -- Sulfur 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that my list has a large number of things not listed on this page. The list you mention only seem to cover the officially published books. My also contains the fan produced works that have been published over the years. --Jackillsfrm
In that case, fan produced items should logically go with the other fan produced things (such as episodes, fiction, games, etc). -- Sulfur 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But this is an all inclusive list that simple collects technical manuals to show what has been produced over the years.Jackill 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Memory Alpha policy on fanon.--Alan del Beccio 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include information like publishing year and format on the reference works page as long as it's found on the indivual pages itself. Oh, and of course separte the fanon stuff. Kennelly 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Not going to be merged. Going to be converted to a fan tech manuals page. In time. -- Sulfur 02:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Star Trek BlueprintsEdit

Star Trek Blueprints already exists. As well, the minibios contained within, in most cases, can merge with those author's articles. --Alan del Beccio 01:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that almost all of these are fanon "publications" too. Just as an aside. -- Sulfur 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that my list has a large number of things not listed on this page. The list you mention only seem to cover the officially published books. My also contains the fan produced works that have been published over the years. I think that this is a stand alone page that does not need to be merged --Jackillsfrm

Fanon content is not allowed per Memory Alpha policy.--Alan del Beccio 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that please destroy this page, sorry for taking up your timeJackill 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
True it is mostly fanon content, but the list is really extensive and informative -- even if only to tell a licensed product apart from a fanon designed when using ebay. Content like this does belong here which -- in my opinion -- is all too similar to "Fan publications" and alike. Because it's going to be deleted in Wikipedia the content should be moved to some Star Trek themed page. It needs format, but merging it with an actual licensed product is not a wise decision. Better move it to "Fan created blueprints" or similar. -- Kobi 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. Definitely should be a fan page. The original suggestion was the real one, because it was not obvious that these were fan productions. The page(s) both need a lot of work to make them acceptable though. -- Sulfur 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If this page and its sister page "List of Star Trek Technical Manuals" remain here I would over time work on adding a thumbnail picture for each of the books/blueprints. I think that the pages can stand on there own and do not need to be merged. Part of the beauty of these pages is the simplicity of the format. A person could easily look up an item on the list. The page "Fan publications" has only a few of the books/blueprints I have listed but they have more detail for each. I do not have a problem with it being listed as "Fan created blueprints" since the only purpose of the list is for information for the trek community. This is information that I wanted to share, if it is listed as "fan produced" it would not conflict with the canon position of the site.Jackill 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If in indeed it is kept, then the format does need work. Not that I'm suggesting attacking these as yet after all... but the second list at the bottom does not appear to be in any order in particular. Any properly licensed items in the lists should be linked to. Whether they have thumbnails? I'm not convinced, especially since 90% of the entries on there are fanon releases. I personally think that those items, if we list them here, should only be listed, and no more. -- Sulfur 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The only reason for the long Reference list on the bottom is that was one of the hoops that I was asked to do over at Wiki. It is almost an exact copy of the information in the table. The Reference list is not in any particular order since it was just a copy of the list above I actually mixed up the order to make it look different, to reduce the visual redundancy. The only addition that the bottom list has is the inclusion of the publisher (if one was listed). If you do not want thumbnails that is OK with meJackill 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably renaming this article as "fan blueprints" and making it fall under the fan fiction and "fan publications" articles' umbrellas. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: OdysseyEdit

This is obviously a hot issue. Not surprising, I guess. Apparently some people are jealous that they only get to run around in uniforms and deliver corny lines at conventions - at the risk of being ridiculed.

I for one am enjoying watching something else than re-runs of Enterprise, and I think the best of these projects (HF, NV, and I have high hopes for OGAM) are really good, at least storywise - and some of these amateurs can actually act too, which is more than you can say for several professional Star Trek alumni. And as for their "right" to be on this site: the very fact that they're *not* affiliated Paramount speaks in their *favour*, if you ask me.

I added some info on the upcoming project by the HF guys. Sounds promising... --dllu 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm... a couple of things... a 'hot issue'? Really? And secondly, the fact that they're not affiliated with Paramount really speaks to why they shouldn't be on MA actually. Since MA is really only for canon stuff, and to list that which is licensed. It's not really for MB either, which is for licensed material, which these Fan Films are not. So, really, it's prolly best located at ST:EU. If anywhere. :) -- Sulfur 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm...a hot issue, yes, in the sense that this is obviously something quite a few people feel strongly about, either pro or con. The canon/non-canon discussion is really a futile one, because in my opinion Paramount doesn't "own" Star Trek, just because they have the copyrights. To me, these projects are just as much "real" Star Trek as all those truckloads of crappy books that have been put out with Paramount's blessing but disregard the tv-series and films completely. Need I mention the Mirror Universe travesty with Shatner's name on it? These fan projets generally don't do that - they just explore parts of the ST universe that hasn't been touched upon in the "canon" works, or at least only lightly. And some of them do it with a lot more respect for the spirit of ST than, say, a couple of shows called Voyager or Enterprise. An example: the idea of having a gay couple among the crew of a starship (an important part of Hidden Frontier if you haven't seen it) was actually an idea of Gene Roddenberry's, that he felt strongly about realizing at some point.

While this is all completely fascinating, and thank you for your opinion, it is unfortunate that your opinions pretty much stand moot here. We have canon policies and this "project" clearly does not fall within its confines. So with that said, who are these "quite a few people" who feel strongly about this? People in your fanfic circles or Paramount? I know, until you showed up, that it certainly wasn't a "hot issue" on this site-- our "hot issue" is Star Trek, if you wish to call it that. Also, regarding your comments about Roddenberry and gay couples...mind providing a source for this? As I recall he didn't want anything to do with an episode about AIDS, why would he support gay characters? --Alan del Beccio 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was: there are obviously people who feel strong for and against this (especially against). Just look at this length of this discussion. But if ST XI is the hot issue - well, I'm sorry, but I didn't know this site could only have one "hot issue" at a time. Anyway, I didn't mean "hot" as in "related to current events", but as in "subject of a heated debate".
As for the Roddenberry source: if Wikis are reliable: [7] Judging by this, if Roddenberry had lived longer, we might very well have seen a gay couple in a canon series. So my point stands: the people behind these fan projects (the best of them; I never claimed it was all brilliant) have done their homework, and they have a love for the franchise that a lot of Paramount execs would do well to use as an example.
And I really don't see what not wanting do to an episode about AIDS (care to find a source for that?) has to do with anything. Star Trek had the first B/W kiss on American tv (Kirk and Uhura, obviously), so why not the first gay couple? --dllu 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

ST: ACTD ListingEdit

Star Trek: A Call to Duty, I believe, has been improperly categorized in the article. Since ACTD is a Star Trek roleplaying simulation organization, and not a stand-alone Fan-released game, its entry should be moved to the Role-playing simulation section. --71.200.223.105 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum:New Wiki for fanfiction?Edit

"I've tried to add information on numerous pages on various fan fiction related subjects but they always get removed and edited out. I understand that many people see in as non-canon information and I've always tried to make it clear that that's what it was (because it is). Every time someone removes my comments they suggest it should be moved to the page about fan fiction but there's just so much to say and tell about the subject it would be difficult to just make one page about it. But I do feel that it's an important part of Trek, seeing that the fans create it. So I've been thinking that I would like start a new wiki about fan fiction. With a library were writers could add links, or even create an online database containing the thousands of fan fiction stories out there. The site would contain reviews, summarizations of the stories content, context, categorizes like slash or not, rated R or pg-13 and such, personal stories, information about the writers etc.."

"But I have no idea on how to set about creating on what would obviously be a huge project. So I would like to ask if the creators of Memory Alpha would tell me how to get started, and how to go about it, and maybe even get a few volunteers who would like to help me out?"

"I think this could save everyone a lot of time editing all this stuff out, you could just add a reference to this new Wiki. And give fan fiction fans a place to find information pertaining the subjects they are looking for. It would be a Wiki for non-canon works, created in the vast realm of fan fiction and many things like it. Like internet fan shows or fan videos."

"Ideas, suggestions, comments? I would appreciate any. Sincerely, – ~~Marjolijn~~"

It already exists: STEU -- Sulfur 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It tickles my spoon to see someone really taking to heart my personal single favorite MA (and general Wiki) policy: Be Bold! I especially like how, Marjolijn, you're finding the solution to this particular problem of all of us in that policy. To start a new Wiki for material that isn't appropriate for this one is bold thinking indeed!
For anyone who wants to know an answer to the general question, while the specific Star Trek fan fiction wiki doesn't require starting after all, let me point out that Wikia has a whole section to help one sort out the details of getting started. And one could drum up interest in advance, via announcements on forum sites (which do exist, no matter what the subject - call this Garak's Corrollary to "Rule 34"). People will respond, thus soothing one's initial apprehension and uncertainty over undertaking an understandably overwhelming - for one person - project like that.
Now, colleagues, a thought: Since it is clearly not after all "sav[ing] everyone a lot of time editing all this stuff out", since it apparently keeps getting added here, may I propose a solution that offers us a way to keep it from being repeatedly added by the same contributors in the first place? Marjolijn points out the advice she's been getting: "Put it on the 'fanfic' page". Might we not do better to instruct, "Put it in STEU"? SwishyGarak 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all already for your help. I'd actually never even heard of STEU. I've just checked it out, but I need to look into it more closely cause I get the impression that its one of those Wiki's that doesn't seem to know what exactly it wants to be. By that I mean that it contains way to many pages that are just exact copies of Memory Alpha pages (with minor differences). You see this on Memory Beta as well. I also got the impression that it only contains fan fiction that is based and placed in the actual canon Star Trek universe (with the exception of parodies of course). If that is how it is, then it wouldn't leave any room for the bulk of the fan fiction that exists. I mean, slash fiction would be out of the question, you couldn't mention uber stories or even stories that are based in slightly altered versions of canon. I will contact the creators of STEU and see how they feel about adding fan fiction of the types I mentioned above. If they feel it does not belong on STEU I will still try and begin a new Wiki for this type of fan fiction because let's get real everyone. Fan fiction that is an addition or addendum to actual canon only is the smallest minority of the fan fiction that is being created out there. There are so many excellent writers and video makers in uber, slash and other stories, I feel it would be highly unfair to pretend they don't exist because most of their works don't conform with canon. Keep the advice coming and please feel free to offer your thoughts on my last comments. Once again sincerely – ~~Marjolijn~~

See the "Appropriate Content" page in STEU's Policies section. They welcome coverage of every fan creation - there are no statements about whether the canonical universe is a requirement or not. Referenced material just needs to be citable. It does say, however, that STEU is not the place to HOST fan creations. It's an encyclopedia. Still, you're probably already familiar with the various sites which will host fanfic. Just at a glance, I discovered twguild.com, trekfiction.com, fanfiction.net, and obviously the newsgroups (aka Usenet, aka Google Groups for linkable Web presence) see piles of this material. So the hosting and the cataloguing of fanfic are two separate needs. Wikis satisfy the second, other internets satisfy the first. Bonne chance, SwishyGarak 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gemini Fleet?Edit

It's a "clan" for a yet to be released official game... It's not a fan RPG, nor is it a fan standalone game. I don't believe that it even belongs on this page. Will we be listing all clans, etc from ST:O? or even Quake (etc) clans that have Trek names? -- Sulfur 08:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. As you pointed out on IRC, it appears to only be a a guild for the game. As such, it should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 08:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan audio productions Edit

Does this not deserve its' own entry seperate from the Fan Films section? I ask mainly because there are several current such audio productions being made available via the 'Net. For the time being, I will add entries for them here, but I feel they should get their own page.

BTW, the link for "The Second Mission" is dead, and does not lead to any updated link, so I removed it. If anyone can find an updated link for this PHASE II project, please add it. If not, or if the project is dead, I suggest removing its listing.

njr75003 05:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing the link, it's best to use the {{brokenlink}} template on the link. In terms of their own article? Possibly. When it was started, this was the best place for it, since there was only one item. But if there are several productions, then it might make sense to split them off into their own page. -- Sulfur 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Orphans of WarEdit

I created a separate entry for this as it is a standalone film that happens to involve two different fan film series working together rather than one "guest-starring" on the other. I really wasn't sure if that was the right thing to do or not. Should it have been a footnote under either Hidden Frontier or Intrepid? And if so, which one? Or both? Thanks in advance for any guidance on this.Bridge 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the key is to see how it's treated on ST:EU, where I saw that, as of midnight last night, it didn't yet exist. The MA/en fan films page is (and should be) primarily a set of pointers to their information, which can be much more detailed. -- Sulfur 10:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

netrek dot org Edit

genocode dot netrek dot org is an archive copy of the netrek web site, the correct name is netrek dot org. i tried to remove the word genocide but got caught on the save here because there was no image for me to see to type letters from. regards. quozl at us dot netrek dot org.

Fan music: To do withEdit

This article is seems to fall on a lower rung than "fanon" and we don't even have a full fledged page for that, therefore, why should we for this? Maybe a compromise for keeping out all these "fanon" based pages is to merge this, "fan fiction", "fan film", "fan gaming" and "fan publications" all into one "fanon" article. Cuts down on the clutter.. --Alan 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced fan music needs any mention anywhere. A song about Star Trek or a character from it is different than a Star Trek story or game. To me, a song fits in the same category as an essay would.
That said, I can agree with Alan that combining all the fan based articles somehow is worth considering, and I could accept music being mentioned there too, if neccesary. It would, however, be a pretty massive article. --31dot 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Klingon Covert Operations ManualEdit

Fan material? Edit

Firstly, this page says it's from 1989, not 1987. But besides that, as a non-licensed fan work, should we actually not have this article at all? --TribbleFurSuit 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of such articles on this site regarding reference manuals. As for this one, it is noteworthy because it mentions a rank which has appeared in Pocket Books novels as well as an insignia which is seen on screen later in "The Most Toys". Not to mention it introduces the ideas of the "human-fusions" which are directly spoken of in "The Final Reflection", "Rules of Engagement" as well as other novels. You might also be correct about the date of publication, I wrote that from memory. -FC 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Google seems to confirm 1989. --TribbleFurSuit 20:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is, in fact, a non-licensed work then no it does not belong. We have a pretty strict policy on Fan Materials. Other reference materials are written by people involved in the production of the show such as the TNG Manual. As for the "human-fusions" that was disproved in ENT as for the reason why klingons and humans looked alike. Novels aren't canon anyway. – Morder 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If people really feel that strongly about this, then it can be proposed for deletion and a vote by the MA community can determine it. My pre-planned response to such a vote can be found here. -FC 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for deletion here, but, lemme point out that your argument is way full of holes. The two works you referenced there aren't similar to this Klingon covert-ops one. They're both licensed by Paramount, this one was self-published by fans. Another point: You say this book is a source for the hybrids storyline, the Fleet Admiral rank, and Data's medal. But first, check your dates: Novels with hybrids came first. And second, apparently no Pocket Books do make reference to Flag Admiral, contrary to your statement above. The only thing that does reference Flag Admiral is another fan tech manual. I really don't see any evidence that this is "a core element of ST reference manual material", if by that you mean ref. material that creators use in new Paramount or Paramount-licensed projects. The medal/pin is an interesting tidbit and might be enough to justify keeping this, but I'm not convinced this book was a source for the medal/pin. --TribbleFurSuit 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Rules of Engagement" was published after this manual and there is a lengthy scene in the novel where human-fusions are discussed. The other novel I think you're right about and I just got confused. As far as "no pocket books make reference to flag admiral" I doubt anyone can say that with authority since there have been close to 150 such novels published in the past 20 years. I actually remember at least two where flag admiral is talked about in passing and I'm sure there are others. As far as the medal/pin being from this manual, I never said that, I merely stated that the same insignia from this manual appears on screen in a Star Trek episode. The history behind that though is that the pin was designed by "Hollywood Pins" who took it from the manual (I know because I knew people who worked there and they told me as such) and then the pin was used as a prop in Data's medal case by the Paramount Pictures wardrobe department. Thats just my own personal knowledge though so I cant put that in the article without a source. Last of all, I'm not exactly sure who published this manual but I don't think it can be said at this point that it was a self published work as there is no evidence one way or the other.
I'm obviously not going to say "Yeah, you're right, lets delete the article." I think instead of being so against it, people should work together to research it a little bit more and improve the article instead of trying to discredit it. -FC 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is an independent, official source stating that this book was the source of the pin design? I could see keeping this if that was the case, but if there is not such a source, I don't see how this is different than any other fan-produced material which is not appropriate for MA.--31dot 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what kind of source you would need. As stated above, I knew the people at Hollywood Pins who designed the same pin that appeared in "The Most Toys" and was told directly by them they had gotten the idea from the Covert Operations Manual. They actually designed a "Commodore" pin too, also based on one that appeared in the manual. I guess I could scan the page from the manual and the page from the Hollywood Pins catalog showing them as identical? Give me a few days to do some research. The article getting hit this hard just a few hours after creation seems to me to be a bit harsh. The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCaptain (talk • contribs).

Comparing this to other works Edit

I created a separate section for this so it does not get entangled with the discussion up above. My question: Is this manual in any way different from The Worlds of the Federation, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, or Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual? None of those other manuals were published by persons connected with the Star Trek show. Rather, the first two by an author hired by Pocket Books and the third by an author contracted to FASA. There is also a fourth work called Starfleet Dynamics which was published for the 25th anniversary of Star Trek, I think by some people connected to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Should we create an article for that manual? Or would it receive a similar classification of fan work? I guess I am asking for an official Memory Alpha policy page which sets down the rules here. The conversation up above has gone too deeply into personal opinions I feel. -FC 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All of those works you linked were licensed Star Trek works at the time, whether through Pocket Books or FASA.– Cleanse 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So what is the determining factor for that and what policy page on this site should be referenced when writing articles like this? Policy rules on this site, after all, as we all know. -FC 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which policy page, you ask? THE policy page, say, bullet #3. --Alan
Is the canon policy the relevant one here? None of the above are canon. Where is the relevant policy that says MA covers licensed/authorized works from a real-world perspective? Maybe this and this? --TribbleFurSuit 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well you yourself are still referring to the Canon Policy and again, referring to things that are "officially licensed." Either way, it would seem that if we have guidelines for the application, or rather, the non-application of "invalid resources" or "non-canon resources" we certainly wouldn't want to establish a double standard by creating an article to something we can't technically reference. --Alan 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Reference works" article was quite an eye-opener. Given that information, we should probably merge this article into some other appropriate place. The material about the fusions being mentioned (which is later mentioned in Pocket Books) is too significant to discard. And it is undeniable that the flag admiral pin does appear in Data's medals case from "The Most Toys". BTW, about that, I sent out an e-mail to an old contact at the now out-of-business Hollywood Pins to find out more about the history of that pin. I'll post the reply here when it comes. As for this article, a merge is fine...just need to decide where. -FC 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MergingEdit

Based on info above, "Fan publications" would probably be the best place to put the book cover. The flag admiral pin is is covered now in the fleet admiral article. Last remaning question is where to put the info about the fusions. A background note perhaps in Klingon augment virus? In any event, merging seems the way to go here. I leave that in the capable hand of the administrators. -FC 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe it's necessary to put any note about fusions anywhere, at least not in relation to this fan work. This manual isn't the source for the fusion elements in the novels - licensed works about the fusions came first. Not all, but, since this isn't the source, it's not worth connecting any dots to it. If you wanted to just expand the augment virus article or the articles we have about the specific novels to show that the fusions were an apocryphal plot, that would be fine, but we don't even consider expanded-universe content apocryphal unless there's a really, really good reason. If this WAS the source of that plot element, then the novel pages would be the place for it and that actually would be a good reason, but it's not the source. --TribbleFurSuit 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That was sort of lengthy but in short I support including apocryphal information from the novels but not information regarding this manual. --TribbleFurSuit 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A merge tag has been added and the section below included in Klingon augment virus.

The manual also deals heavily with why the Klingons from Star Trek: The Original Series appear differently from Klingons in later eras. The manual explains that such Klingons were "Klingon-Human fusions" designed to make infiltration into Federation space more easier. This concept was later picked up by several Pocket Books authors and is further explained in Rules of Engagement, and other novels. The manual was written long before the explanation of the Klingon augment virus which is the canon explanation for this difference.

The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCaptain (talk • contribs).

I don't think that there's anything left to merge. Apocrypha from licensed works was already merged, and so was the production detail about the pin. Now what's left is material that MA does not cover. The Fan Publications page lists the existence of the KCOM, and that's as far as MA goes on fan stuff. The contents belong at the STEU wiki, not MA. The rest of this article should be completely removed. --TribbleFurSuit 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Der Book Cover :-) It can go at the bottom of the fan publication page with the rest of them. Thats all thats left. -FC 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's classy. --TribbleFurSuit 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We have redirection! An admin needs to merge the talk page, that can left for them to do. -FC 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

split the page? Edit

This page is kinda long and gross and if I start adding more games, is going to be even more of a mess. Who will I offend if I start breaking stuff out into sub-pages? -- Akb427 05:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You should see Star Trek parodies and pop culture references but to me the length is fine for now. — Morder 05:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Still not sure why we have this article anyway... --Alan 12:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What to do with "fanon" on this page? (it's not fan fiction) Edit

I like the idea to make a distinction between "fan fiction" and "fanon" - they're totally not the same thing and I'd argue that they're barely even "related concept[s]". Nevertheless it was recently added to this page under "Other Resources". First: if this is the right page to talk about fanon, I think that section isn't the right part. Second, I think this page isn't the place to talk about Fanon at all, except maybe a "you may be looking for..." note at the top. Any thoughts? --TribbleFurSuit 17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I felt fanon should be noted somewhere, but wasn't sure where it should be so I just decided this page might fit. It seems I was wrong. :P Feel free to remove it. However, I think it should be on her somewhere-possibly it's own page? --Golden Monkey 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's already on canon. --Golden Monkey 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so it is! --TribbleFurSuit 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SimpificationEdit

Like we did with Fan fiction previously, I've slimmed down this page significantly. It isn't and should not be a list of all of the games out there with details on game play, links, and so forth. Now, it's a discussion of the phenom, and descriptions of the pair of games that Paramount actually endorsed (for a brief period of time). And that's it. -- sulfur 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk-Spock Slash content Edit

I don't want to provoke a move war, but I believe that, with the recent changes to this article, the section about Kirk/Spock "slash" is now out of place here as well. If you look at the article, that content is now as long as the whole rest, which is some sort of umbrella description of all fan fiction.

I'm not sure about the proper action here, at the moment... Reduce to a single paragraph? Move back to James T. Kirk (from where it had been moved here) and/or Spock? Remove completely? ...but in any case, I don't think the article is properly balanced now. Any suggestions? -- Cid Highwind 07:33, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Roll back to a paragraph (if not shorter). Definitely don't move it to the character pages. Slash fiction is bad enough on this page, without needing it there. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:44, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
I was a little perplexed myself when I suggested it be moved here, as I knew it shouldn't be on the character page, but I wasn't really sure if it went here as well. From what I understand, and that's not a lot in this case, Star Trek pretty much created this type of fan fiction, so it should be mentioned somewhere on the page, though it might not hurt to trim it down a bit. - Archduk3 08:36, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
As someone who does know quite a bit about the history of slash and Star Trek's place in its creation - and someone who knows several different people who were in the fandom around that time - I believe that it's very important it stay here, or somewhere on Memory Alpha. The creation of slash as a genre had a profound impact not just on Star Trek fan culture but on other fandoms, and its effects have persisted right up until the present day. It was absolutely groundbreaking and that needs to be acknowledged. What I wrote essentially restates what is discussed on the Fanhistory Wiki and the creators' responses to the possibility - I don't think it can be streamlined more than it already is without cutting crucial information. And I must say I resent the statement that "slash fiction is bad enough already." Just because you have issues with it doesn't mean it isn't very important to a lot of people. Please don't dismiss those of us who view Kirk and Spock's story as a love story - I find it quite rude. I'm sorry to be so defensive but that statement is insulting not only to me but to an entire generation of fans.--Cure a rainy day 02:29, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I happily dismiss basically all fan fiction, but creating fiction based on a sexual orientation that the characters never displayed, and a romance interest between two characters that never showed it, that's even more easily dismissable. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:23, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Actually there's a sizable amount of evidence that a romantic relationship between the two was a possibility, if it didn't actually exist. But that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is, the development of slash in the Star Trek fandom had a profound influence on fan culture that resonates to this day and that is incontrovertible fact. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. Your personal opinion doesn't particularly matter here and this is not your private playground. Just because you don't agree with something is no reason to keep it off the wiki. I did my very best to keep my chronology unbiased despite my personal opinions and you need to do the same. Dismissing an entire generation of fan culture just because you don't agree with it is rude, arrogant and has no place here. --Cure a rainy day 03:30, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I've slimmed it down some more, trying to avoid the "the fans do this" stuff and sticking to only material that can be cleanly cited. It's still a bit long, but I can see some of the relevance, although I still wish that we could limit the entire fan fiction article to a couple of paragraphs and nothing more. Fan fiction certainly didn't originate with Star Trek, and while some of the things that came out of it might've been "firsts," it isn't something that Memory Alpha should be spending a lot of time on. That's what the Fan Fiction wiki is for. -- sulfur 03:47, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
While I can see your point, I did make a point to include only things that could be directly cited from other sources - which include the profound effects slash had on other fan media. I can appreciate the necessity to slim it down a bit, although I wish that necessity didn't exist, but frankly it is a critical part of Star Trek history and deserves to be mentioned here. --24.210.42.153 04:00, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I rearranged the article in an attempt to incorporate this new info better as well as increase the overall ease of reading. I think we got a good balance now between not going too in-depth while still covering the basics. - Archduk3 08:01, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

New Voyages/ Phase II Edit

This is so popular that we actually had to create a redirect to this article. It should be briefly covered. Heck, it's really a whole other category, as it is a fan series. But even saying something about it under films would be sufficient.

In fact, I'm going to try that last suggestion, being bold and all that. Unlike policy pages, I have no problem fixing things up without discussion. But I do like to explain my reasoning. —Commodore Sixty-Four(TALK) 06:02, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

We have a number of redirects to this page. Mostly because people keep trying to create articles for it here. There was a conscious decision to remove all fan film titles (whether film or series) because people kept adding in their own fan films ("if X is there, why not Y?"). There are several series of films (and audio plays for that matter). And just because it's a "series" doesn't mean that it's a new category. It's still a collection of fan films. -- sulfur 11:58, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's consensus, we've got stuff that needs to be removed, as other specific fanfics are mentioned (and even shown in pictures) on this page. I also do not agree that films and episodes of a series are the same thing. Do we treat each individual episode of the canon shows as a collection of films?

If I wasn't worried it would be misinterpreted, I would just remove all mentions of specific fanfics. But I have a feeling that, if the page continues to have things that are against so-called consensus, then that is not the true consensus, and this would start some sort of fight.

I also do not find it easy to find the previous discussions where all this consensus is established, and I would appreciate the link. For all I know, you are just simplifying the debate (which would make the current state of the page make sense), and there were some exceptions allowed. And thus I would ask that the fanfic that has been endorsed by the previous writers and actors would also be an exception to the general rule.

Thank you for your time
Commodore Sixty-Four(TALK) 04:31, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Episode of a series or stand-alone film, if it is made by fans, we are not interested in it here at Memory Alpha, unless it becomes licensed by CBS Paramount. There are no films or episodes named on the article, and instead, we have put a link to the bigger of the two major Star Trek fan fiction wikis. If people want to know more about fan creations, there are plenty of resources. Memory Alpha is not one of them. -- sulfur 10:17, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki