Talk:Star Trek (film)/Ten Forward

Template:2009spoiler

Forums → Ten Forward → Star Trek (film)/Ten Forward (reply • watch)

On this page, we will discuss how and where to add information from the upcoming Star Trek after its release. During the site lockdown, preliminary discussion results from a specific, open IRC channel may be added here. After the lockdown, full discussion will continue here. See:

• Forum:Star Trek (film) - Removing spoiler restrictions / Site lockdown for a discussion of this.
• Memory Alpha:Announcements/Star Trek release announcement for the official announcement resulting from that.
• Forum:Star Trek (film) - SPOILERS - Where to place new information (pre-release discussion) for pre-release discussions of the same topic.

-- Cid Highwind 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC discussion

May 7

Participants: User:Jörg, User:Cid Highwind, later User:Tim Thomason, User:Bp, User:Shran, BCSWowbagger, User:ZenMondo

• Jörg states that items just being "namedropped" could just be added to existing articles, while separate articles should be created for clearly incompatible uses (citing Delta Vega as an example). Cid thinks that merging info from different timelines into one article may be more complicated than having two separate articles.
• Jörg thinks we'll need clear identifiers for the different timelines (example identifiers below). Cid agrees, and suggests to additionally identify the timeline an article belongs to by some sort of page icon or graphic. Jörg likes the idea.
• Identifiers: "(alternate)" is considered too generic. Brainstormed other terms include "Narada", "Nero", "Red Matter", "Kelvin", "2233 split". Jörgs suggestion of "Kelvin Destruction timeline", abbreviated for article qualifiers as "(KD)" is the best idea we can come up for the moment.
  • Bp joining in later suggested using "(alternate)" or "(Abramsverse)"
  • BCSWowbagger later "voted" for separating pages responsibly. He cited Natasha Yar (from TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise") as a special case, due to her being a "tiny character," but Shran pointed out that the same was true for Hikaru Sulu and Nyota Uhura.
• Joining later, Tim suggests to qualify Delta Vega articles by (Vulcan system) and (galactic barrier). However, this tells nothing about the timeline the planets are from. Each one may not exist in the "other" one.
• Cid discussed adding a special qualifier bar at the top of the screen (here). This still needs to be updated for all skins.
• Shran later joined in and expressed his wish to hug the writers of Star Trek.
• There was some discussion regarding the age of Pavel Chekov (17 in 2258-set Star Trek; 22 in 2267-set "Who Mourns for Adonais?"). Shran and Tim agreed that the events of the alternate timeline may have caused a different conception time, and since he existed entirely in the alternate timeline, it had no effect on the original universe.
• Tim and BCSWowbagger disagreed on whether the reference to "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" should be Porthos, due to the time of the incident.
• Shran and Tim agreed that images known or apparently taken from bootlegged sources shouldn't be used on the site, whereas ZenMondo believed that any screencaps from the film should be accepted.

Additional comments

I'm on my way to a theater right now, so I'm not taking the time to log in to IRC -- one thought though, there was, in "Where No Man...", a sign in the set decoration that identified the TOS station as being on planet "Delta-Vega". Perhaps we should use that hyphenated name for the TOS planet? -- Captain MKB 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My disambiguant vote goes to "Red matter reality" or "Nero's timeline", but neither lends itself to a catchy abbreviation. -- Captain MKB 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very difficult decision. Characters like Uhura (soon to by at "Nyota Uhura") and Hikaru Sulu would definitely benefit from additional info to expand their articles, but pages that are already long, like James T. Kirk and Spock, would just be made even longer. I don't supposed we can have movie info for long page characters on separate pages, and put movie info for the shorter pages in those pages, could we? (Not sure if that made sense, but there you go.) As for a qualifier, how about "Kelvin Timeline" (or KT) or just "Timeline B"? --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--From Andoria with Love 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the timeline should rather be "Kelvin timeline" than "red matter timeline" or "Nero timeline", as the destruction of said ship changed everything. Nero and red matter will be forgotten in the next movie, the fact that Kirk's Dad died aboard the ship, crewmembers on that ship first saw Romulans (no more "Balance of terror") and Pike writing his thesis about George Kirk and the Kelvin will still be relevant in the netx movie(s). Hell, even the fact that there are salt shakers in the shape of the USS Kelvin show, that it's pretty significant. --Jörg 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of the Kelvin may have been the first change but it is not the biggest change. The destruction of Vulcan will be remembered more then the destruction of the Kelvin, and will change the timeline more significantly.

May 8

Participants: User:Cid Highwind, User:ZenMondo, Bacon, Samy_M, User:Tim Thomason, User:Majorthomme, willyum

Three points have been brought up by Cid, in reply to comments on this page:

1. "Nyota Uhura" - we technically don't know that, as the new Uhura was born in the separate timeline already - we should be very cautious when adding "new timeline" stuff to "old timeline" articles!
2. "Nero timeline" (or any N*** timeline) would have the nice side effect of being abbreviated as "NT". Which, in turn, could have a secondary meaning of "new timeline" - We can add article title qualifiers like "(NT)" to new article, which is pretty short. On the page, we can then qualify this (using a template) as "Nero timeline".
3. i updated the "qualifier bar" somewhat. both graphically, and on the script side to work with monobook - the link has already been posted above. If this meets consensus, feel free to grab everything necessary from MA/eo and add it here. You can see in the RC there which pages I changed. If we use this, we could also adopt the design for other "qualifiers", such as realworld, or mirror!

Not much discussion about that follows. However, ZenMondo likes the "Nero/new timeline" moniker, while Bacon suggests "vector timeline".

Random thoughts brought up later (paraphrased, not actual cites):

• Cid: We should make sure to ridicule N*kia as much as possible, on our now-necessary page about them. We shouldn't be a part of that stupid product placement scheme.
• ZenMondo: A redirect from "Spock Prime" to Spock is in order.
• ZenMondo: Since Winona was in labor before the timeline split occured, shouldn't Kirk's birthplace be changed from Iowa to USS Kelvin?
  • Cid: Would be speculation to do that, an early birth might have been triggered by stress during the attack, and Kirk otherwise born on Earth.
    • ZenMondo: However, check if birthplace:Iowa was really stated as fact, and remove otherwise.

--Cid Highwind 11:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While I like the "NT" distinction, it may not be so appropriate for subsequent movies/other productions set in the alternate timeline as, while the timeline would be featured, Nero will probably not return as a central villian! --Defiant 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "Nero's timeline" better than "Nero timeline" (note possessive) for that reason. Even though Nero has passed on and won't return as central villain, he was the driving force in disrupting history, thus he gets the "blame". Also, this has the aforementioned "NT" meaning "new timeline" or "new Trek".

As to Nyota, I think it would be a little snobbish to think this might not be her canon first name. Nyota has been her non-canon first name in novels for decades, and it was obviously the film's way of acknowledging the long history of licensed literature in the original timeline. Just as Star Trek VI finally acknowledged Sulu's first name of "Hikaru" after it was used in novels for years and TAS finally acknowledged "Tiberius" as Kirk's middle name after it originated in a noncanon source. -- Captain MKB 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Full agreement here, see my post above. --Jörg 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, here's no reason why Uhura of the prime timeline cannot be named Nyota Uhura. Remember, these are the same characters as in the prime universe, they have just had different experiences. None of the other characters' names have changed at all (James Tiberius Kirk, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Andreivich Chekov, Montgomery Scott), so there's no reason to believe Uhura is any different. Besides, Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols have already stated her first name is Nyota, it just hasn't been revealed on-screen until now. As for Kirk's birthplace being changed, there is no need; for all we know, the Kelvin was on its way back to Earth when its sensors detected the black hole. Also, as Cid said, hightened stress might have caused an early birth. As for using "Nero's timeline" or "NT" as the qualifier... I'm okay with that, though I prefer using "NT" to mean "new timeline" rather than "Nero's timeline" (though that can be on of the alternate meanings, as can "new Trek"). I still think we can have some of the information on pre-existing pages, though. Uhura, for certain, needs an expansion. --From Andoria with Love 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Nyota on both articles, although we should definitely express the source and possible ambiguity on Uhura Prime's page. As for Kirk's birth, we should leave his Prime birthplace ambiguous, and simply state his mother was pregnant with him on the Kelvin. Let the readers wonder if he was born there or in Iowa (where he was "from" and probably grew up). I think right now we can safely use the "(NT)" qualifier after the lockdown and until or unless we come up with another solution.--Tim Thomason 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bp thinks the qualifier should be "red matter timeline" or "RMT" since it is the red matter which creates the singularity which sends Nero back in time in the first place. I agree with this reasoning. He also believes that "Nero's timeline" is not appropriate since A.) Nero existed in the previous timeline, B.) the timeline doesn't belong to Nero, and C.) it's the red matter-created singularity which really alters events, not Nero's destruction of the Kelvin. I also agree with those reasonings. He also doesn't like the term "new timeline," though I personally don't have an issue with that term. So, to reiterate, bp likes red matter timeline/RMT but not Nero's timeline/new timeline/NT. I like red matter timeline/RMT and don't like Nero's timeline/NT, but I can live with new timeline/NT. And there you have it. :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the direction this discussion is taking.--31dot 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

31dot, could you clarify? Where do you see this discussion going? Do you mean you like "NT" or "RMT" as a qualifier? Or are you just satisfied that we're aiming more towards creating separate articles rather than adding the info to the pre-existing pages? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I was in a rush before and should have been clearer. I think NT/new timeline is the best choice, though RMT doesn't bother me. That's more what I was referring to, though I agree with the way the pages thing is going(sep. pages where warranted) I also think assuming the "Prime" Uhura's first name is Nyota is reasonable.--31dot 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The following was added later in the day:

• Samy_M suggested a more, out-of-universe approach. He suggested that the use of (2009) or (2009 timeline) as a disambiguation would solve the confusion caused by using in-universe monikers. Majorthomme agreed with this.
• Tim disagreed with using out-of-universe disambiguates, stating their removal from Memory Alpha in the past.
• Samy_M questioned if we should create separate articles for everything seen in the alternate portions of the film, such as phasers specifically. He believes that this would solve the questioning of what gets separate or not. willyum agreed to an extent, and Tim stated that it should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

--Tim Thomason 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments

I just returned, it's about 2am here, and I'm probably going to miss out on most of the re-opening fun during the next few days due to other commitments. So, please bear with me while I leave the following two comments:

1. A personal one: I absolutely hate the moniker "Red matter timeline"! Sorry if anyone feels offended by this, but of all the different names that have been thrown around, this is easily the worst, sounding like something one might expect from a cheesy 50's sci-fi flick. Please, let's not go there, especially keeping in mind what someone said on IRC - whatever name we choose will, probably, be adopted by at least some part of the fandom. What I really like about the article qualifier "(NT)" is that there are so many different, but all fitting, interpretations of what it might mean: Nero['s] timeline, New timeline, New Trek, Narada-induced turnout ;) - everyone might find some interpretation he likes in those.
2. An "official" one: please keep in mind that this discussion so far has not been instead of a wider consensus on the wiki, but just in preparation of one. By all means, start writing articles in 4 hours - but please don't cite this page as absolutely disallowing one thing or making "official policy" another.

Thank you, and have fun. -- Cid Highwind 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts/suggestions in no particular order:

• Support moving the "original" Uhura to Nyota Uhura
• Support separating Delta Vega and Delta Vega
• "NT" sounds fine, but I guess this will be something that will be debated massively.
• Make it a rule that all "NT" characters get separated, regardless of original length. Just for simplicity; otherwise it will be a pain looking up who is separated and who is not (e.g. in memorable quotes). For all other articles, split on a case by case basis.– Cleanse 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Matter Timeline or "Alternate Reality", and here is why:

• The new timeline has to be able to be referenced in-universe. I'd like to see the first line of Cid's POV article on [[New Timeline]]. In-universe, what is the "new?" and what is the old? Certainly there is no "New Star Trek".
• And how is it Nero's Timeline? He didn't cause it. He doesn't own it. He existed in both. It isn't his in any way, and after a few films, with other villains and events, are we going to still refer to it as Nero's?
• Things went into the singularity and came out at different times. We don't actually know that the Nerada was the first thing through, or the earliest change to the timeline. The battle with the Kelvin may not have been the "first" change, maybe only the first big change.
• The red-matter induced singularity caused the tunnel back in time, and split in the timeline. It makes more sense to call it after that.
• Or, like DHorizon said, "alternate reality" is something they specifically referenced. The name alternate reality though is so generic, and not at all unique in Trek. It can, however, be described in an in-universe way since the characters have already done so.

Anyway, "NT" meaning New Timeline, or New Trek, or Nero's Timeline is the worst option because it can't be referenced or written about in the correct POV. So my first choice is "Red Matter timeline," even just because it will be easy to replace when we think of something better, and far second choice is "alternate reality." --bp 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was called Nero's timeline, I can explain why it is Nero's "fault", as it were. His ship was the first to traverse back through time to 2233, and his decision to attack the Kelvin ultimately created the change. So it is his fault. Dave^{Subspace Message} 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, isn't the term "alternate reality" used in reference to the original timeline, rather than the new one? I don't recall the exact dialogue in the scene, but I think Spock is talking about Nero's origins, and Uhura says "an alternate reality?" Certainly, from the perspective of the characters in the film, the reality from which Nero and "Spock Prime" come is the alternate, not the one in which they exist.

I accept that "new timeline" suggests an out-of-universe point of view, but "alternate reality" sets the "original" timeline as the base. I recognize that Nero exists in both timelines, but so did the red matter (it was created in the original timeline, and was used in both — in the original, it was used to stop the supernova). The red matter and the black hole were merely the occasion for the timeline change — as Dave says, Nero was the agent. If we went with "NR", it could mean "Nero-altered timeline" rather than "Nero's timeline" if that's objectionable. —Josiah Rowe 05:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question "how is it Nero's timeline?" -- Dave is right -- It is his timeine because it was his decisions and actions that caused it to be! No matter how dead he is, he still initiated the whole ordeal by his own madness. This is also a good naming from POV purposes, because all the characters know that this is why things are different -- because of Nero. Kirk knows his father would have survived if not for Nero, etc.

I also dislike the red-matter naming convention as suggested, it sounds a little hokey as stated earlier.. -- Captain MKB 06:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've haven't seen this movie yet, planning to see it on Monday. However does this mean there are TWO universes in Star Trek now? A Roddenberry one and an Abrams one?

Nero didn't cause the split. He was caught in the black hole. Also, as I said already, he may not be the first thing sent back, or earliest the thing to appear. The timeline may actually fork much earlier. Certiainly the destruction of the Kelvin is not the fork. The entire Kelvin encounter was in the alternate timeline from the first detection of the "lightning storm" or maybe earlier. Anyway, "alternate reality" seems to be where this is going based on the RC. I'm Ok with that, it is just difficult to imagine The alternate reality when you think of TNG: "Parallels". --bp 06:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nero's timeline? This is not Nero's timeline. He didnt create the timeline. The black hole did and he went insane in it and messed around with it, but he did not create it. Spock was also involved in this so it could also be called Spock's timeline (??). The best thing would be to stick to alternate timeline. Unless the writers of Star Trek say it is indeed Nero's Timeline we got no business naming it that. It was not intended to be nor will it be known in the Star Trek universe as Nero's timeline. It should be kept simple. – Distantlycharmed 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I support making the distinction name "Red Matter timeline". No matter how "hokey" it may be, that's beside the point of how accurate it is! --Defiant 11:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally extremely pleased we have began using "alternate reality" because it is a term directly from canon, and isn't a term fans have made up. However the articles now being created seem to have no standard to them. Some are written like norman articles, some have the name as "Title (alternate reality)" but content like a normal article and the best ones I think are when the title has the "This and that (alternate reality)" and the text makes it clear in the first sentence with the "...was this and that in the alternate reality". I think we should enforce this as the standard. --Pseudohuman 13:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudohuman. "Red Matter Timeline" and "Nero's Timeline" are made up terms by fans to refer to the events of this story. They are NOT what production says and advertises about this alternate timeline in which this story takes place. It has nothing to do with being hokey, it is just wrong. As an encyclopedia, it would be wrong and inappropriate of us to just make up a term about events, rather than sticking to standard as we know, because it makes sense to US. Unless the studios advertise and directly state' it as "Red Matter Timeline" and "Nero's Timeline" and say "the star trek universe is taking place in nero's timeline" etc, we got no business making up that term and inserting it into the Star Trek encyclopedia like that. "Alternate timeline" really is the best term to be used, especially because it will resonate more with people reading an article about let's say the planet Vulcan that was destroyed in that alternate reality rather in some "Neros's timeline" reality. – Distantlycharmed 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Red matter timeline" is a descriptive title, often used on Memory Alpha when there is no official title. No one is making anything up, we're just describing something without a name. Since the red matter is what cause the split, we call the new timeline after it. --bp 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pesudohuman/Distantlycharmed - the problem with that is, if you're looking at the relevant scene again: not the "new" timeline is called the "alternate" one, but the "old" one. So, if "this is from canon" is our sole reasoning for a naming scheme, we are talking about tagging a bazillion articles as "alternate" while keeping only the new stuff untagged - not the other way around.

Re:bp - and "Red Matter timeline" is still not the final name that has been decided upon. -- Cid Highwind 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"alternate timeline reality" (our current qualifier) is the term used in the film when they (Spock/Uhura mostly) made the realization that things were altered... --Alan 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Alternate reality" to be exact. That's the term the "alternate" Uhura uses to describe the current universe, not the original "prime reality." So Cid's statement is incorrect.--Tim Thomason 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Cid, no "It is canon" is not the sole reasoning for a naming scheme. The rest, see above what Alan and Tim Thomason said.

@ BP: Fact remains that "red matter timeline" or "nero's timeline" are terms coined up by fans to refer to the storyline in this movie. They are neither encyclopedic, nor do they go with canon, or have been endorsed and supported by production/writers of this movie. In this timeline, things were altered so it needs to be the alternate timeline, not Spock's or Nero's or Red Matter's. – Distantlycharmed 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New guy here. The 2009 film timeline is now the timeline. The 60's show timeline is now the superseded timeline. - Starfield 22:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But the original timeline still exists, is still the topic of this wiki, and still has more content here than the other reality. But thanks for chiming in. -- Captain MKB 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it still exists. I just don't like the tag "Spock (alternate reality)." It isn't the alternate reality, it is the reality. "Red matter timeline" sounds kinda dumb. Maybe Distantlycharmed is onto something. Maybe "Spock (altered reality)" would be better. - Starfield 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the new timeline should supersede the original one simply by virtue of which is chronologically newer. I think it is MUCH more important which one a) the original CREATORS of the whole concept were involved with and b) which one has VASTLY more material available. Once the new timeline starts to have an amount of stuff available that isn't completely being dwarfed by the original timeline, then it'll be a closer call, but for now, I think it's clear-cut that the new movie is still a variant and the original timeline is the default timeline. The new timeline doesn't automatically get super-respect simply because it's new. Respect must be earned through time and effort, showing that the new timeline can produce amounts and quality of material that can rival the original timeline. Once that happens, it becomes a contender for being considered the default timeline. Until then, it's just a variant timeline.--Samy Merchi 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My vote goes for "Abramsverse" with an abbreviation like "ABU" (Abrams Universe) or some fan-created name like that. For example, you could label the Abramsverse Spock as Spock (ABU). "Alternate Reality" is too confusing, since there are other alternate realities and timelines (such as All Good Things or the Mirror Universe). I think the Battlestar Wiki provides an excellent example of how to structure a wiki that covers multiple continuities. Oh, and "Red Matter Timeline" just sounds cheesy. :P DarthXor 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are joking right? "Abramsverse" as if he, a "real life" person, was not only the authority on Star Trek but he should also have a timeline named after him? With that reasoning, why don't we just create a new wiki and call it "JJ Abrams Star Trek"? Fan created names should not be used to reference this alternate reality.– Distantlycharmed 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, I can respect that... but surely there's something more descriptive than "alternate reality"... it's just too vague. Even "Red Matter Universe" sounds better than simply "alternate reality". DarthXor 07:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems I have with "alternate reality"/"altered reality"/"alternate timeline", etc. is... 1.) they're too generic and unspecific, and may consequently be misleading for some new users, and 2.) in reality, both parallel universes are shown as prime universes unlike the Mirror Universe, but the current system implies favoritism towards the older episodes/movies! While the Star Trek franchise is doing its best to seduce new viewers into watching, we shouldn't be discouraging new viewers from using this wiki! --Defiant 10:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got a MU subsite. Are we to have a new subsite? AyalaofBorg 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But it is an alternate reality that is created here, because we have 40 years of Star Trek and six series and more than half a dozen movies created in the "main universe" timeline. That should be honored. I mean look, while we are discussing this amongst ourselves, people already say "we should refer to this new/alternate timeline as x, y, and z." That would not confuse new readers and it would allow us to honor and acknowledge these past 40 years of Star Trek material. Unlike Abrams, we dont have the luxury of just pressing the reset button and erase what's been going on with Star Trek for the past four decades. ("secondary" timeline would make sense too). – Distantlycharmed 15:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's slightly off-topic but, if we already have a Mirror Universe version of MA, we should certainly have one for the new timeline/incarnation of the franchise! There'd still be the same info available here, but the new version of MA would concern itself exclusively with the new Abramsverse (as some fans are describing the direction Trek is taking)! --Defiant 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Abramsverse" is a fan-made up name/term to refer to the new timeline. It is by no means true to production or encyclopedic. No one in ten years from now will remember this as the "Abramverse" but as the new or alternate timeline created in the Star Trek universe. Moreover, Abrams will not be directing all the subsequent Star Trek movies that will come out - even if the stories are going to be played out in this new / alternate timeline. – Distantlycharmed 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with what has been said about the advantage of not using a fan-made name for the new continuity. Nevertheless, I also see the disadvantage of "alternate universe" as, particularly in common use and for non-hardcore fans, this could easily be confused with "mirror universe" amongst others. With this in mind, I suggest "composite universe" as it would (in mathematical terms) be the antithesis of the "prime universe." I will grant from the get-go that "composite" could very well be dictionally misinterpreted to refer to a universe which somehow merges multiple realities together (comments?) but from at least one perspective, I felt it would be worth mentioning and considering in-light of current debate. – Adam Schiller 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Weaving in the New Movie with the Existing Fabric of Memory Alpha

How do we reference minor supporting facts from the movie in existing Memory Alpha articles? For example, it may be possible to draw a connection between red matter and the artificial quantum singularity that powers Romulan war birds. The speculation is that red matter was used by Romulans to start singularities in war birds. (After all, where did Spock get all that red matter in such a hurry - from Quark's bar for some gold-pressed latinum and a lifetime supply of snail juice???) Since this idea is pure speculation, it seems worth adding to the Talk Page of the artificial quantum singularity and red matter articles. Should this just be added to the pages, or should this kind of edit be discussed here on this page first? Existing policy for this Wiki has been that speculation may be added to Talk Pages and that speculation is discouraged in Articles. Similar questions arise about appropriately adding speculation and minor facts regarding trans-warp beaming, the presence of Orion slave girls in the academy, Sulu's folding katana - factual information that has little to do with when Nero popped up. --Winn cochrane 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think maybe we should start a new wiki for the information in the film. Who knows. Maybe the film will do really well and spawn a series of its own. That would be a lot of information to conflict with the official canon.- JustPhil 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have one Wiki because many (if not most) of the plot devices are the same between this new movie and all previous work. The question about finding the best place for these new facts then becomes, "Will weaving in those details help explain the plot and tell the story of Star Trek?" The purpose of this Wiki (from "Goals of MA", and Memory_Alpha:Why_contribute) is to document canon. Why document canon? I say that Star Trek fans document canon in order to understand the stories of Star Trek. Trek to me explores the potential of technology to do good. Antimatter, singularities, and impulse_drive are based on real-world concepts and technology. Generally speaking, science fiction has always imagined humanity after some advance in science and technology - in Trek's case, the dawn of the space age. In our generation space exploration is well-established and now continues to expand. If a link from Star Trek (film) to Red matter to Singularity to gravitational singularity gets someone to start thinking about real-world science and the impact of that science on social issues, then Memory Alpha has supported Star Trek and served its purpose. --Winn cochrane 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Where Spock "Prime" got the red matter from was dealt with in the Star Trek: Countdown comic, plotted by the movie writers.

[Of course, MA may choose not to treat ST:C as canon - and has a decision been made on that, or is there the automatic "not on screen, not canon" presumption pre-empting any consideration otherwise - but that shows at least the intended source of it]. - SanityOrMadness talk page 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this movie any different than any mirror universe episode we have seen on ENT and TOS where we basically created a separate entry for each character (mirror Kirk, mirror Archer, mirror Spock etc) and explained? Why does this have to be so complicated? Maybe in the movie that comes out later they will reset the timeline and then we went through two years of tagging everything that has happened in Star Trek from TOS to ENT as alternate, just to see the timeline be reset in the next movie maybe. The point is, this is all speculation and i dont see why we cant just treat this alternate timeline created by Abrams as any other mirror universe episode? And then the whole "Red Matter Timeline/Universe" thing. Create a wiki called the "Red Matter Star Trek"? Come on. – Distantlycharmed 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that the next movie will restore everything to as it was. But I doubt it. I strongly suspect that The Powers That Be chose this reboot specifically so that future writers will be able to do what they want, totally free from having to research canon and precedent, with no fear of looking over their shoulders for fanboys screaming "Continuity Error!" This in mind, it is my opinion that the best thing the admins might have done, is that on May 7, they might have renamed virtually all in-universe articles with the tag "(original canon)" or "(original reality)" or "(pre-Abrams)" or something. But the tags should be on the old articles, not the new ones. Spock has no mother, Kirk has no father. If there is a new series, or a few more sequels, it is going to get awfully tiresome putting "(alternate reality)" at the end of every single new article. --Keeves 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or complicated about adding an "alternate reality" tag to new articles pertaining to this new movie. I really dont get why it's a big deal. And why should we dump on and forget 40 years of Star Trek history and works because Abrams might wanna make it easier for his writing team to coin up more stories like that without having to do much research? Maybe this is a "parallel universe" and parallel universes run...well parallel to each other, so this timeline could exist side by side the canon we know. Maybe Daniels from ENT went back in time and fixed the timeline, so what Abrams did was an interesting story not bothering continuity - who knows? the point is, this is all speculation. We dont know what Abrams has in mind and it really doesnt matter. He is by no means the end-all, be-all of all Star Trek stories and he is certainly not the main creative head/authority superseding everyone else's work and efforts over the past forty + years. For now we should keep it simple and just add "alternate reality" tags to new articles, instead of going back and tagging thousands of articles on MA to distinguish from Abram's interpretation and the poetic license he took.

You might be right that in fact Abrams had setting the stage for new stories based on a "clean slate" in mind, but that would pretty much set back Star Trek 129 years (and us back to the world prior to TOS) which just blows because the whole point of Star Trek is to go where no man has gone before and not resetting everything back to square one so the writers dont have to inconvenience themselves – Distantlycharmed 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about writers not wanting to inconvenience themselves; it's about drama. If we know that Kirk ends up dying on Veridian II, that decreases the drama of a Kirk-in-jeopardy scene. Of course, we also know from dramatic convention that it's unlikely that Kirk will be killed (at least not permanently), but there is much less jeopardy when you know what the future holds. That's why they destroyed Vulcan: to show the audience that anything can happen. This new universe really is "where no one has gone before", at least more than something like Enterprise that had to end up in known territory. (Enterprise introduced the Temporal Cold War for the same dramatic reason, but never really carried it off.)

But this is just a fan dispute that's not directly relevant to the question of how to handle the material from the film on Memory Alpha. I'm OK with the "alternate reality" tag, although I'd prefer one that was a bit more specific. If anyone can find an interview in which Abrams, Kurtzman or Orci discusses the timeline issue, perhaps one of them uses a better term. —Josiah Rowe 05:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SPOCK: I submit it could be argued that - Not only as he would have been born before Kirk (and the alternate timeline); but, it is unlikely that he would have personally been influenced by the premature death of Kirk's father, prior to entering Star Fleet - all new movie information regarding his birth, education and life decisions prior to leaving Vulcan for Earth (along with related photo references) be included in both the recognized reality and alternate reality. Similarily those of Sarek and Amanda Grayson would be uneffected before the appearance of Nemo. Therefore details Sarek reveals about their relationship would be true regardless. Thoughts? rrtthatsme 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, totally. And using the same logic, everything about George Kirk prior to Nemo's appearance should be canon to both realities. --Keeves 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to Yesteryear, Spock was born in 2232, only a year before Nero's appearance. And we do not know how George Kirk's death inlfluenced him, but as long as there is a possibility that it did, I think all new movie info should go only to the alternate Spock article. QuiGonJinn^Talk 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back to square one and starting an entirely new Star Trek with TOS originals at a younger age is not boldly going where no man has gone before. It saves on invention and is unimaginative. Not that i didnt like the movie, but when talking about creating something new it does not entail working on the same old formula/characters of yesteryear with just better special effects. We honestly dont know what future writers/producers will make of this. Maybe they will create a connection between this movie's timeline and something else in the main universe timeline of Star Trek, who knows. Boldly going where no man has gone before would be exploring Andromeda maybe. Star Trek has always been about exploring new frontier, discovering something new, the thrill of the unknown - the challenge of reaching beyond what is known and comfortable and within reach. It is about playing with questions about science, ideals and philosophy - according to Roddenberry's unique vision - not repeating old formulas and creating some sort of a "space opera" (which Abrams has a preference for). Anyway, I'm digressing. I guess the point is I really think this can be all kept very simple by just adding the "alternate timeline" tag to new articles to distinguish from and honor all the other works done in the Star Trek universe for over the past 40 + years. – Distantlycharmed 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the movie, and started to think about how to do this. Since the timeline never was restored, the only logical path would be to see the events of the film as reality, since that is what we have done with other timelines. They are real until they are restored. But then, of course, everything people has written here will suddenly not be true anymore, since nothing would be the same in a world with two Spocks, no Vulcan and so on. That leaves ut with thousands of articles which are not real, and about ten that are. Strange, at best. We simply can't do that, so I say that we, before we know more, simply lable the events of the film as an alternate timeline, and not facts. /Marten1000, who is not logged in --81.235.148.197 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the movie is that this is a new timeline - nothing will be restored. And...we've already done that... — Morder 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Film

While I think the film is GREAT (when seen in IMAX - like actually BEING IN SPACE - fantastic - deserves an award)...someone may come up with criticism of the facts or continuity. Where do we park these discussions? For example (NOT A REAL ARGUMENT, JUST AN EXAMPLE): "Why did all that red matter that destroyed the Narada not envelop the Earth? My answer is that the red matter had to be injected into the core of a massive object to envelop it. Although the Narada was above the Earth, it wasn't in the center and thus could not disturb the planet below." - Where does this discussion go? The Star Trek (XI) film talk page? The red matter page? The V'Ger page, since the same question applies (how did V'Ger explode above Earth without taking half the planet with it???) I hope my example highlights the essence of the problem regarding criticism. --Winn cochrane 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't go anywhere. Nitpicks are not allowed on Memory Alpha. -- Michael Warren | Talk

Not even on a talk page? Winn cochrane 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of the article in terms of what should go in it - not general discussion of the subject. Sorry. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the page with the policy on nitpicks/questions? If nitpicks like that aren't allowed, how 'does' one get their burning questions answered? Ctetc2007 07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, your "example" doesn't go anywhere because the Narada had warped away from Earth in pursuit of the Jellyfish when the collision happened.

Yes, they were quite far from Earth if their high-warp velocity was any indication.

And V'Ger didn't explode -- it disintegrated... Are you watching different movies than the rest of us? -- Captain MKB 16:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe Winn cochrane's in an alternate reality, watching these films! ;-) --Defiant 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New qualifier suggestions

Ok, so, I have come to the conclusion that alternate reality is far too generic a term to use as the qualifier for the Star Trek pages. There have been so many alternate realities on Star Trek; we need a term that better differentiates the timeline of Star Trek from the rest of the timeline. So, here are some suggestions.

1. I am still game for "red matter timeline," given the fact that it's red matter which is used to create the black hole that sends Nero back in time, altering the timeline. There's also the fact that "red matter" is unique to this particular movie.
2. In the movie, the elder Spock is credited as "Spock Prime", referring to the fact that he is from the prime universe. As such, maybe we should come up for a good term for the new versions of the characters that is the opposite of prime. The opposite of prime is "composite", so... "composite timeline?"
3. Since the split occurred in 2233, maybe we can use something like "2233 split", "2233 time split", or "2233 alteration."
4. As I recall, the writers once referred to the prime timeline as "Timeline A" and the new timeline as "Timeline B." We could so that same. Can't remember where I heard that, though.
5. If all else fails, we may have to create a real world POV qualifier for the articles ("Abramsverse," "Trek 2009 timeline," whatever). The Battlestar wiki does that and they seem to get along fine.

Again, these are just suggestions. Please comment on the above; if anyone have any other suggestions, please add them below so they can be considered. Thanks! --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Timeline A"/"Timeline B" comes from J. Michael Straczynski's proposed reboot from a few years back (which actually bears some similarities to what Abrams/Kurtzman/Orci eventually did). I agree that using a real-world qualifier would be better than the generic "alternate reality", even though that's the term that Uhura uses in the film. —Josiah Rowe 05:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is the only "alternate reality" we are actually acknowledging then using the current qualified isn't a problem. Everything else will remain status quo. --Alan 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's not the only alternate reality we discuss. See the examples at alternate timeline; we also have pages like Starfleet uniform (alternate), which deal with other alternate realities/timelines. (I don't think that there's a meaningful distinction between "alternate reality" and "alternate timeline".) —Josiah Rowe 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Composite? Huh, doesn't prime mean first? Where did you get opposite of prime is composite?70.95.183.51 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The opposite of a prime number is a composite number. I though it worked, anyway. I dunno, I'm tired. :-P --From Andoria with Love 05:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Alex Kurtzman calls it an "alternative timeline" in this interview. —Josiah Rowe 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about the New Universe as opposed to Prime Universe? It's still somewhat generic but sounds cool. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.200.122.230.

New Universe means something different to comics fans, though that's not an insurmountable obstacle. —Josiah Rowe 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use New Universe. Sure, it's new now... but, 40 years from now, when somebody reboots Star Trek again, it won't be New anymore.

I agree, New Universe will be invalid if this is rebooted again. I prefer Nero Timeline, or even moreso, AbramsVerse which is similar to the already established ShatnerVerse.67.242.192.82 14:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to maintain future flexibility by putting no qualifier at all on articles relating to the reboot, and instead we can enshrine the original timeline by calling it "Prime". Not only does "Spock Prime" set a precedent for this, but also check out the Wikipedia article about Earth Prime for other examples of this usage. With little or no canon references appearing, articles titled "James T. Kirk (Prime)" or "Starfleet (Prime)" would end up getting few or no edits, while "James T. Kirk" and "Starfleet" would continue to grow. Perhaps in deference to the cast listing, "Spock Prime" would have the distinction of not having parentheses. --Keeves 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "red matter timeline" just really sounds silly. As Josiah said, Kurtzman used the term "alternate timeline" and in the movie itself Uhura says "alternate" reality. We also should not name the timeline after the director of the movie. This will create issues as then later you can have other directors and because directors have nothing to do with "in universe". stories anyway. I dont think "alternate" is too generic, since there is the main universe , mirror and now alternate (this movie). Yes there have been alternate realities within episodes in various Star Trek seires but they all fit in canon (main universe). "Prime" and "composite" universe sounds ok too (better than "red matter timeline" or "Abramuniverse").

If all subsequent movies are building on this alternate timeline, then naming it alternate timeline makes sense. If somehow they decide to reset the timeline and everything will be back to as we know it, then the term "alternate timeline" will still make sense.

I strongly suggest we keep it simple. Going back and tagging thousands of articles on MA is not the solution or the wisest. For example, there is nothing complicated about referring to the new uniforms on the "starfleet uniforms" page as "In the timeline created by Nero in 2233, these kinds of uniforms x, y, and z were worn by Starfleet". – Distantlycharmed 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Same uniforms were worn on the Kelvin, weren't they? So we can conclude that they were worn in the main timeline in 2233 too, and were changed to TOS version later, while they weren't changed in the alternate timeline. Ausir 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Different uniforms in the Kelvin era. See George Kirk, for example.

You should follow the lead of the credits and use Spock (prime), James Kirk (prime), etc. This honors the original continuity as the prime one. Then the "2009 film timeline" should be used without qualifiers to reflect the fact that this is now the reality as it exists, as altered. I know that probably represents a lot of work, but that is the best solution, IMHO. [Edit: What Keeves said. (I just read it.) It makes sense that the unqualified articles are the ones that grow.] - Starfield 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion "the alternate reality" is not a generic term enogh to warrant a fanon replacement term. It is the only canon term used in the movie. I think we should go with it. Until another canon term comes along. What ever term we use, will end up in the in-universe text, and I do not think there should be any fanon-terminology there. --Pseudohuman 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Incursion? Temporal incursion? Nero incursion? Something with the word "incursion" in it, maybe. J Di 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I will say this just one last time, and then I'll bow out of the conversation: I see no reason why The Powers That Be would want to revert to the original timeline, and if new movies and new episodes are indeed produced about a Kirk who has no father, and a Spock who has no mother, then this "Alternate Reality" will ultimately become the 'New' Reality, and future users of Memory Alpha will be in a very awkward and clumsy place. According to Star_Trek_(film)#Sequel, "On 30 March 2009, it was announced that Paramount was moving forward with a sequel to Star Trek. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have again been hired to write the screenplay, along with the first film's producer, Damon Lindelof. J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk will again be producing via Bad Robot, along with Orci and Kurtzman." If any of those poeple could simply confirm or deny whether or not this new continuity will be permanent for the foreseeable future, it would really help us a lot. --Keeves 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, yes, it will supersede the original timeline, *if* lots and lots of future Trek is set in this timeline. Key word being "ultimately", and *not* "now". One sequel -- two movies -- are *hardly* enough to compensate for ten movies and 28 seasons of TV -- about 4 hours versus about 580 hours of entertainment. Whatever the current creators want is irrelevant -- every creator wants their take to be the definitive one, that's obvious, but we as a wiki should work on a more neutral, objective basis and not give certain creators wish fulfillment just on the basis of them being the newest joinees to the club of Trek writers. If anything, the rookies have a *longer* road to prove themselves than the more established Trek creators, not an instant path to glory.--Samy Merchi 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I think "prime" as a designator gives honor to the previous characters being the "prime" ones. But the neutral, in-universe objective facts are that the new timeline has effectively replaced the "prime" timeline. Just ask Spock prime. - Starfield 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well of course the new one has replaced the prime one *for Spock* -- HE CURRENTLY RESIDES IN THE NEW ONE. :) But ask anybody who resides in the old one whether theirs is replaced and you'll get a different answer! Picard or Janeway, I'm sure, don't think theirs is replaced; to them, Spock just disappeared through a black hole into an alternate universe. You're going by in-universe *subjective* facts. As is my Picard/Janeway perspective, subjective as well. There *is no* objective fact about whether the original timeline still exists or not. We do not have accurate temporal telemetry on the survival of that timeline. We cannot assume it has been destroyed, we cannot assume it survives -- its fate is still up in the air. For all we know, the next movie might have Kirk-2 meeting Picard Prime, thus confirming the survival of the other timeline as well. We should not make any rash decisions about the universe's fate since we do not have any objective facts on it so far, only subjective ones. --Samy Merchi 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

*scratches head* There is still a timeline where a giant, ugly Romulan starship didn't appear through a black hole in 2233? Nero entered into the "prime" timeline and proceeded to mess with history. This wasn't "fixed" at the end like your average episode. - Starfield 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, there is still a timeline where Nero didn't appear in 2233. The "Prime" timeline survives, separate from the "Reboot" timeline. Both continue on. This has been explicitly and unambiguously confirmed by writer Bob Orci, for example [here]. The late 24th century continues, with Janeway as an Admiral, Riker on the Titan, and the upcoming Star Trek Online game is set in that continuing timeline. At the same time, the reboot timeline that Nero created when he went back to 2233, also continues, parallel to the original timeline. This has been said very clearly by the writers off-screen, and there is no on-screen evidence to the contrary to not take them at their word. --Samy Merchi 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the link, and if that is the case, I hereby declare quantum mechanics to be total bullcrap. Nero traveled to the prime timeline. He entered the timeline. He exists in that timeline starting in 2233. If we were writing a biography of George Kirk's life, I do not see any way where it could logically follow where events unfold where the most significant event in his life in 2233 is the birth of his son. But, that won't affect my enjoyment of "Star Trek." There's a lot of questionable science there. I defer to the creator's statements on the matter as canon. - Starfield 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, Uhura's "alternative reality" distinction statement, and the dialogue between Spock's where it becomes apparent that it was always completely irrelevant to "reapair this timeline", only that it was the prime-Spock's friendship with prime-Kirk that motivated his interference to unite the crew he knew in the prime-universe. This was in the movie to make the distinction between all the previous timetravel stuff. Why, because the new timeline exists in a new quantum reality and the prime-universe continues to exist in it's own. As is discussed in the interview with Orci here -> [1] This was at least least the writes intention regarding this films effect to continuity. --Pseudohuman 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I too feel that 'Alternate Reality' is too generic. It's a description, not a name, and there are plenty of Alternate Timeline references that have nothing to do with the new movie's continuity. Also, down there road if there is another alternate reality we'd have two of them. I supposed I'd most be in favor of the "Timeline B" distinction, with the Prime Universe remaining for the original one. I'd rather use anything other than simply "an alternate reality." (Although, since the Jellyfish gives a stardate beginning with "2387" or whatever, I suppose you could argue that we are already seeing events from two alternate timelines, and the 'original' isn't even in the movie. But I digress...)– AJHayson 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Jellyfish probably just translated the stardate into one which Spock of that period would understand. --From Andoria with Love 02:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What other "alternate timeline" references are out there that have nothing to do with the new movie's continuity? If you are referring to alternate timelines in an episode and/or already existing movies, then, as mentioned above, those are part of the canon of the Main Universe we already know anyway.

And I agree with Psudohuman that "Alternate Reality" is not a generic term, especially because it has been used by the writers and in the movie itself. It is encyclopedic. Fan terminology really should not be used in this case in order to refer to this alternate timeline. I have yet to hear a compelling argument based on evidence as to why it would be more encyclopedic and appropriate, given all factors and concerns mentioned above, to use a terminology coined up by fans who think that "alternate reality/timeline" just doesnt sound exotic enough. As mentioned above, keeping "alternate reality/timeline" would work no matter which way the writers/producers decide to go next time: by either continuing on developing the story of Kirk & Co in the alternate timeline they created with this movie or by connecting it with the main timeline we have known for 40 years. Abrams is not the authority on Star Trek and his work does not supersede that of everything and everyone else over the past forty years, because he decided to follow the Hollywood prequel craze. The original timeline should be honored as exactly that. – Distantlycharmed 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other "alternate timelines" include the anti-time future (and anti-time past, and anti-time present), which contains pages like USS Pasteur and Irumodic Syndrome, which may or may not exist in the "prime" timeline. Then there's the timeline from "The Visitor", which includes pages like Korena Sisko and Morn's. There's also Starfleet uniform (alternate), which deals with uniforms seen in multiple alternate timelines. These timelines aren't really part of the prime universe's timeline — we only know about them because someone from the prime universe (Picard, Sisko) traveled to them and back. They're still described (accurately) as "alternate timelines", which is potentially confusing if we continue to refer to the new timeline as the alternate timeline.

The cast, crew and writers of Star Trek have all been signed for two more films, and the writers have made it clear that they plan to continue in the current timeline without using any more time or dimensional travel. (For example, see here, where Orci says, "Despite [time travel's] overuse, we thought ‘let’s use it one more time before we put it away, and then not use it again.’ " Although plans can change, all evidence at hand indicates that the future of Star Trek will be in this timeline.

It's true that this timeline is "alternate" to the timeline of prior Star Trek. (I won't see the film again until next weekend, so I won't be able to check for myself whether Uhura's line about "an alternate timeline" is a reference to the new or old timeline — does anyone recall for certain?) But it's also true that going forward, it is the original timeline which is "alternate". The POV of Memory Alpha has to be that of "Spock Prime" — aware of the existence of the original timeline, but "present" in the new one. As far as we know, in-universe only Spock Prime has experience of both realities, so if we want to write about both from an in-universe point of view, it has to be Spock's. And he's living in a reality in which Vulcan has been destroyed, and the Enterprise has lots of pipes in its engine room. If he was discussing his past with anyone, he'd say, "I lived most of my life in an alternate reality, in which Vulcan was not destroyed." So from that point of view, "Vulcan (alternate reality)" would be the planet he remembers, not the one that he saw destroyed.

Because of this, I'm now leaning towards Keeves' suggestion of using "(Prime)" for articles concerning the original reality (where disambiguation is required: there's no need, for example, to move Jean-Luc Picard to Jean-Luc Picard (Prime), because the only Jean-Luc Picard we know anything about is the one in the Prime reality, so no disambiguation is necessary). That, just like "alternate reality", is supported by the filmmakers' usage; it retains the primacy of the original timeline, which contains many hundreds of hours of Star Trek; and it's not an invented fanon term. But it also acknowledges that the new timeline is the "real" one, not just an alternate like the anti-time future from "All Good Things...". —Josiah Rowe 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to agree with Josiah as above, right down to not having to add the Prime tag to articles not yet effected. The only problem I see with this which still keeps 'Red Matter Timeline' ahead in my mind is that Red Matter is a plot element comprehensible and usable by in-character and in-world narrators, while Prime is from the credits and is not. 'Alternate Reality', despite the fact that Uhuru said it to (frankly) help spell it out for a possibly-confused audience, does not make in-world sense either. As others point out, to those characters it's the original timeline that'd be alternate. ...

Not to add even more to the debate, but another term could be 'post-singularity', since the creation of a singularity from the Milky-Way-destroying supernova, and the appearance of the Narada out of a singularity in 2233, could be used both in-universe and outside, is referenced in the film (the singularities at least), and sounds cool to boot.  ;) I agree that Red Matter sounds sort of retro, but then, retro is not something to be ashamed of, is well at work in the new Trek, and remains in-universe. Whatever may be, I think the need to come up with something that would make sense in an in-universe article is important. ... By the way, the novelization is out on the 10th, and may contain more useful terminology, or at least a hardcopy of whatever it is Uhura says.  :) --Aqaraza 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I also considered moving the original articles to "so-and-so (prime)", but I'm not sure how well the majority of the community will take that. By the way, the credits are canon, so long as they aren't screwed up (i.e. having Uhura credited as "Uhuru" in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country). As for what Uhura says, her line is "An alternate reality," to which Spock replies, "Precisely." --From Andoria with Love 05:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But was she referring to her own timeline or the one from which Nero comes? I thought it was the latter (but I'm not at all sure). —Josiah Rowe 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a big milestone for Memory Alpha. The question is how it chooses to pursue canon, now that there are essentially multiple versions. Does it continue to espouse the canon as it existed before the movie, or does it use what will be canon for the franchise as it is now?

The problem is in what canon means. Is it what the writers use to make future works? Or is it what the fans conclude to be true? If the latter, which fans? Whatever we do, we can't throw out the past, but we also cannot ignore the future. Commodore Sixty-Four^(talk) 06:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The alternate reality in this film is really something that hasn't been seen before in Trek, ever. It isn't another alternative timeline we've seen before, but an artificially generated quantum reality. So this is the first and only known occurance of such a phenomenon. And if there is only one, then it isn't generic. We don't need to make up a name for it. --Pseudohuman 09:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's approach this from another angle: Whatever name we decide upon, it should be one that isn't terribly confusing to the majority of readers. In that case, we shouldn't rely on the (non-)difference of "alternate timeline" vs. "alternate reality". As can clearly be observed in this and related discussions as well as in already created articles, the terms "timeline", "reality" and "universe" are used interchangeably by most people. This may not be completely accurate scientifically, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that, for most people, the important part of the title will be the first word, not the second.

With that in mind, using "alternate" as the term to describe this new timeline/reality would be confusing - just look at all the articles that already talk about something "alternate" (1, 2, 3, 4 and many more...). In short, just read the following sentence taken from the current version of "Alternate reality" and honestly tell me it isn't confusing: "The alternate reality is an alternate timeline forked from the prime reality. -- Cid Highwind 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont find this confusing at all. Everyone knows (and I'm not talking someone who just started watching Star Trek like 2 months ago), that the entire Star Trek universe is based on one consistent timeline (despite small incursions in various one hour episodes here and there that were "fixed" anyway and still fit into the entire main timeline/canon). This is what makes (made) Star Trek so great: the fact that you had this consistency throughout. This is not news to anyone and this is not "Stargate" or "Galactica" or whatever else other shows are out there. It's Star Trek. Therefore, the term alternate timeline would not be confusing. It really is not that hard to distinguish this 100 minutes movie from all the other 40 years of Trek works produced. Finally, the writers themselves as well as the movie itself refers to this as "alternate" and uses that term several times. So why shouldnt we stick with it? You'll never have people sit together and say "oh yeah you know the new star trek that is based on this red matter timeline/nero's timeline" or "how did you like the new star trek based on Abrams' timeline". Who says that?? No one. Everyone says alternate reality/timeline etc. There is no reason to nullify, like Kurtzman et al did, 40 plus years of Trek history and change around thousands of articles and pages on MA because of a couple of movies. Using terms coined up by fans to refer to in universe facts/events like this is unencyclopedic. – Distantlycharmed 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the fact that the "alternate" qualifier is already in use on this site, and is used to mean various other things than "this fact is from the new 2009 timeline". We either find a new qualifier for this, or we discontinue its use to qualify random other timelines and/or realities. Continuing to use it for both is confusing. -- Cid Highwind 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Those alternate qualifiers that were used in Apocrypha dont count because they are not canon and never were. With respect to uniforms or something like that, it will then just be a matter of either removing such qualifiers or specifying. For example, "in a timeline created by/in XYZ, they wore these uniforms". There are not thousands upon thousands of articles that need to changed on account of it. Moreover, "alternate" is the only term used in the film to refer to this new timeline created, and not "red matter" or "nero" or what have you. (btw, we could call it new timeline). – Distantlycharmed 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editing break

(Hope you don't mind the heading break) How about, we do what I suggested a, seemingly, long time ago. For about the thirteen or so necessary pages (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, Uhura, Pike, Sarek, Amanda, USS Enterprise, Spacedock, I guess Vulcan, basically any page with exceptional differences that can't be sectioned from the Prime page) we create a disambiguation at the "root" page. For example, at James T. Kirk:

You may be looking for:

• James T. Kirk (Prime), for the Captain of the USS Enterprise and USS Enterprise-A
• James T. Kirk (alternate reality), for the Acting First Officer and later Captain of the USS Enterprise
• James T. Kirk (mirror), for the mirror universe counterpart
• James T. Kirk (android), for the crazy robot version

We don't treat the "Prime" reality and the "alternate reality" any differently (even if the characters do), as we shouldn't promote one as better than the rest. We also don't note the "alternate" status on pages exclusive to that reality (for example, Keenser or Gaila or Gilliam), just as we won't note the "Prime" status on pages exclusive to that reality (Picard, Sisko, et cetera).

The term "alternate reality" is the only term used in the film, and I checked, is exclusive to the film (yes, "alternate timeline," "alternate universe," and "parallel reality" have been used). The qualifier has some problems, but it's just as confusing at first glance as the "mirror" qualifer, and that's worked out. And of course, we should change the first sentence on the alternate reality page, and perhaps write a prime reality or some such page in the future.--Tim Thomason 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, and is perhaps the best compromise, in the sense that everyone will be able to grumble about it. Spock (Whichever the hell you prefer) would approve. --Keeves 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I like that. There is prime, there is alternate and there is mirror. It reflects exactly what has been going on and makes clear distinctions so as to not confuse anyone. – Distantlycharmed 18:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that whatever we're talking about is called AR, AT, AU and PR interchangeably only strengthens my point, which I feel is still conveniently ignored. If we want to signal that this is not just some run-of-the-mill random timeline hiccup that's forgotten next week, but in fact a new "second main timeline", we need some name that is not also used for those random timelines as well. -- Cid Highwind 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about new timeline? – Distantlycharmed 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that this would not be the worst of choices - and also, as has already been suggested further above, just using its abbreviation (for example: Spock (NT)) would have the nice side effect of possibly being an abbreviation of either "new timeline", or "Nero timeline" (which I'd still prefer), or "Narada timeline" (or "Next Tales", or "Narrative Turnout", or...). We'd still need to determine which one of those to use when spelled out, but (NT) would be a good qualifier for article titles, I think. -- Cid Highwind 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a new timeline that has been created. Calling it Nero's is too subjective. Plus, others were part of this new timeline, such as Spock, who, if I remember correctly, suggested using red matter to get rid of the supernova etc. I still believe alternate to be the best, but new would work because it is still objective and encyclopedic enough and not some fan made-up term for MA only (i.e. not supported by production). – Distantlycharmed 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty good idea... designating the main universe "Prime" and the new one "Alternate" should help alleviate confusion. However, I would capitalize "Alternate" when referring to the new universe, to distinguish it from the other "alternate" realities. DarthXor 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Timeline is imho better at least than alternate timeline, for all the problems mentioned above wrt the use of that term in many other places. Plus, 'New Timeline' would have the advantage of blunt simplicity; even the completely new fan would understand exactly what was meant by the short-and-sweet term, better than if it were 'alternate'. Eventually, the timeline will be old, and it'll feel weird to call it 'New Timeline'. But maybe by then there will be an accepted technical term out there. Until then it generically satisfies the needs at hand. it may not be anyone's favorite, but even a 'Red Matter Timeliner' like myself doesn't hate it.  ;) --Aqaraza 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with "new timeline" too. It has the advantage that if our imaginary point of view is that of "Spock Prime", it's something that makes sense from that point of view (as Spock would consider himself as living in a new timeline). And whatever disambiguator we choose, I think that Keeves' proposal of having a neutral disambiguation page, with (prime timeline) or (new timeline) is a good one. —Josiah Rowe 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain that New Timeline is too short-sighted. It won't be new forever. I would prefer Alternate over New. DarthXor 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate is far too vague - it's one of the two standard adjectives (the other being parallel) used for describing "other universes/realities/timelines within a multiversal system". Hell, the Mirror Universe was described as "the alternate universe" within DS9 (at the very least, Quark to MirrorEzri in "The Emperor's New Cloak"), and I wouldn't expect readers to immediately recognise *a* difference between "alternate reality", "alternate universe" or "alternate reality", since they get treated interchangeability in general use.

At the same time, I agree with your problem with "New". I would rather use a more descriptive disambiguator. - SanityOrMadness talk page 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should go back and add "Prime" to the articles not involved with this movie. If you did it for just the characters that needed disambiguating, you would have to do it for all of them. --31dot 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just watched it again, and it seems that Uhura is referring to the reality of the movie. Spock speaks of the string of events which Nero has set into motion, and Uhura calls the characters' reality an 'alternate reality' in relation to the one Nero knows. So there's that.

In addition, I read an interesting comment today that got me thinking. The writer's theory is that what is represented is not simply an alternate timeline in the same universe, but an alternate universe, akin to the Mirror universe, except that things are not different in essence but mainly in detail. It even makes a convenient way to explain initial differences in technology (the Kelvin's advances). Either way, though, the word 'reality' encompasses either the idea of a timeline or a universe in a word that's better than both.

So even though I myself prefer tying it to an in-world cause such as Red Matter, simply calling it 'Alternate Reality' seems easiest. Certainly the words 'timeline' and 'universe' should be dropped from the running as being too specific; 'reality' encompasses more, including the unsolvable mysteries of the initial differences. I've changed opinion on this about 6 times now... --Aqaraza 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be alternate timeline and not alternate reality. New timeline or alternate timeline will be something that everyone will understand when looking at Kirk's profile, for example, and wanting to distinguish between the main universe Kirk and the one in new timeline. Again, fan-made up terms that are not supported by production and are kind of subjective should not be used in a Star Trek encyclopedia. New or alternate timeline are still the most appropriate terms to refer to this...well... new alternate timeline that has been created. Also, no matter how many movies will be made, this will still be the new timeline that's been created in the Star Trek universe/canon. – Distantlycharmed 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But.. Uhura says 'Alternate reality', I'm pretty dead-certain. I actually had thought it was you who had first made the case that we should go with what was spoken in the film. I'm just suggesting that maybe that word ('reality') is less careless than it seems, since it preserves an ambiguity that I think is deliberate on the part of the writers (and which neither 'timeline' nor 'universe' preserve)... --Aqaraza 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"New timeline" would work until they decide to do it again in 43 years. :)

Aqaraza is right that if you want to be precise about using in-universe terms, we should probably choose "alternate reality" over "alternate timeline". (By the way, thanks for checking on the referent of Uhura's line, Aqaraza — that makes things a bit simpler.)

31dot suggests above that if you disambiguate for characters (places, etc.) who need disambiguation, you should also disambiguate for characters that don't. I disagree. We can use article text and categories to identify which timeline/reality an article is about. It makes sense to distinguish James T. Kirk (Prime) from James T. Kirk (alternate reality), but there's no need to talk about Jean-Luc Picard (Prime) or Keenser (alternate reality). Saying that every page title should indicate which reality it's referring to strikes me as the sort of "foolish consistency" about which Emerson warned. —Josiah Rowe 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But we shouldn't have to use article text to identify the timeline a character is from. I dislike the ideas of pages like Keenser and Gaila expressly stating that they occur in an "alternate reality" or "Nero's timeline," as I feel it's the same situation if we just edited, say, Kivas Fajo's page to say he existed in the "prime universe." That's unnecessary and elevates one continuity over the other. If we're supposed to be an omniscient library, we have to be neutral on this point, as I tried to express above with my proposal. It should only effect about 13 pages directly, maybe a few more, maybe a few less. There might be 10-20 other articles that are small enough, or have a small amount of info to keep it all from separating into multiple pages.--Tim Thomason 04:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about article text. But what about using categories? We've already got Category:Mirror universe and its subcategories. Couldn't we also have Category:Prime reality and Category:Alternate reality? Categories like Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel (alternate reality) could be subcats (or sub-subcats) of Category: Alternate reality. I see that someone's already created Category:Alternate reality characters, which may be worded with the wrong POV, but shows that others are thinking this way.

I'm thinking that for someone like Gaila (Orion) we wouldn't use either article text or disambiguation in the title; we would merely add a category which would indicate that she exists in the alternate reality. Eventually, we could do the same for prime reality characters (ships, places, etc.). Pages like USS Farragut (23rd century) could be placed in both Category:Prime reality vessels and Category:Alternate reality vessels, or whatever wording we choose. —Josiah Rowe 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the notion that all of this will only affect a handful of pages is correct. Even if only 13 pages are going to need disambiguation (not even sure about that), we definitely need to make note of the timeline something is hailing from in other cases: take Battle of Vulcan as one example. We mustn't pretend that everything is the same - because it isn't. This battle hasn't taken place in the past of any of the 24th century characters we know and wrote about, and by not making note of that discrepancy, we'd deliberately be more confusing than we need to be.

This situation is not the same as continuity errors during production, which we pretend don't exist. The differences here are real, and by design. Regarding the question of how to exactly make readers aware of this, have a look at these "article type bars": User:Cid Highwind/articletype. -- Cid Highwind 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah. There is no need to tag "every" article and page and person as "prime" or "alternate" universe if they were not involved in the movie. Saying Jean-Luc Picard (Prime) is really superfluous. @ Aqaraza: I think both timeline and reality as well as new and alternate make sense and are encyclopedic. – Distantlycharmed 06:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Alternate" would work if and only if it was the only incidence of something from outside the "prime" universe in Trek - I've already pulled up an example of a character (Quark) referring to the Mirror Universe as "the Alternate Universe" - and to most people, whether "universe", "timeline" or "reality" is used is a distinction without a difference.

Hell, even in the movie, it's "an alternate reality", not "the Alternate Reality" - ultimately, if you go down the road of using "alternate", you then need to further disambiguate it as (2233 alternate reality) or somesuch. - SanityOrMadness talk page 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't 2.0 work? It is both easily understood by everyone and very descriptive of the situation.

Something like that would also be meaningful to those who have seen the movie, while also keeping recent changes less spoiler-loaded than it currently is. --Defiant 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2.0 is a modern slang term (a la web 2.0), so wouldn't make sense from an in-world point of view. I think as regards the term used, someone in admin circles here should encapsulate our dilemma and write a note to Kurtzman, Orci and Abrams asking for ideas. Their opinions alone may not be canon, but they're as good ours!  ;) Plus, they got us into this mess.

Anyone who hasn't examined Cid Highwind's ID bars should. The concept is great, and if it's as easy as adding a single tag to an article, it just may work, whatever we call the new reality. I do think that if a visual tag is going to help ID all articles, their content should be designed carefully. (Cid's look really great, but other interps are possible; maybe a contest.) User:Cid Highwind/articletype --Aqaraza 14:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're an elegant solution. Perhaps the templates could also include categories, so that pages could be categorized by POV or timeline? —Josiah Rowe 05:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Watched the movie again yesterday, so two things - First, I'm still pretty sure that Uhura exclaimed "an alternate reality?" in reaction to the rest of the bridge crew discussing the timeline Nero came from. It only makes sense - given the choice, would you call your own universe the "alternate" one, or the unknown different universe?

Second, another naming suggestion - the bridge discussion ends with someone (Spock?) stating: "whatever our destinies were [in the original timeline], they're changed". So, I suggest "Changed Destiny", or "Changed Destinies". It's "official", directly from film dialogue. It's "in-universe", the characters know that their destinies have changed in comparison to some unknown "original". It's "self-explanatory" for our readers, it doesn't favor one timeline over the other in either way, and it's not related to any specific event, object or person from this movie. It seems to evade all criticism that has been stated in reply to any of the other suggestions so far. -- Cid Highwind 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Uhura's pronouncement will be the source of much ongoing analysis.  :) I heard it the other way around, even though I wanted very much to hear it the way you describe. I do like your intriguing alternative. It is a direct quote, and it definitely refers to the universe of the film. He said '...our destinies have changed'. Simply removing the word 'have' leaves 'Destinies Changed' which sounds like a good title for a novel.  ;) Is it too poetical to be believable as an in-universe name they'd use for their own condition? Maybe not, since that's exactly the spirit in which it's uttered. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts. --Aqaraza 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Changed Destiny"? How would you refer to that: "For James T. Kirk in the timeline created in the Changed Destiny Universe, see James T. Kirk (Changed Destiny)" ? Come on. Aside from really sounding awkward, I dont find it encyclopedic because destiny is more of a personal attitude towards something. Also, destiny suggests fate and that in fact the new timeline is an "aberration" to what was meant to be in the grand scheme of things etc. Uhura seems to be lamenting more about the fact that their lives are going to be different from what they were in the alternate timeline, and that they have to come to terms with it, rather than making a sound scientific observation to correctly categorize their situation. Destiny is also very specific, whereas "alternate" encompasses the entire story line/premise of this new universe created, without making any value judgments. Production refers to this as an "alternate" timeline, although "new" would work as well because heck this is a new timeline that's been created. I really dont see what the issue is. Anyway, I like what was suggested by Tim Thomason above and the tags by Cid. It's simple, it's accurate, it's encyclopedic and production supported.

Re criticisms that people might not get it: if anyone coming to MA for info is sort of half-awake and somewhat aware of Star Trek, they won't have a hard time understanding what "new timeline created by Nero's incursion" could possibly mean. Let's give people that much credit. – Distantlycharmed 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding referral, you're making this sound much more awkward than it really has to be. If you simply replaced "changed destiny" with "alternate reality" (further qualified enough to specify this alternate reality instead of any generic one) in your suggestion, it would sound just as awkward. So, instead, my suggestion would be:

1. qualified article titles like "James T. Kirk (CD)" - similar to the "NT" abbreviation that had already been brought up above.
2. the articletype bar, containing "Changed Destiny" as its title - just like it would otherwise have "New Timeline" as title. I consider those bars to be "meta information" anyway, so any in-universe concerns shouldn't play a role here.
3. Mentioning this in in-universe content: Since the "new" timeline characters know about the "old" timeline, but not vice versa, there won't be a situation where this name is mentioned. This leaves...
4. Aggregate articles containing information from both "old" and "new" timeline. If we don't split those articles in the first place (which I'd prefer in many cases), we need some out-of-universe means to separate these informations, anyway. A header called "Changed Destiny" would neither be better nor worse than one called "New Timeline", I think.
5. disambiguation notes: That one could be as simple as "Changed Destiny: James T. Kirk (CD)"

--Cid Highwind 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Err, I am not sure I understand why you say that the *new* timeline characters know about the *old* timeline. I mean yes they are aware of it, if that's what you mean, but there is no indication in the movie that they know what happened there exactly and to whom. Spock didnt elaborate. Also, there are still problems, aside from being awkward, with using the term "destiny" (it really implies some sort of higher powers in place that create your fate and destiny and in Star Trek you dont wanna go there). If we go down that route, we could also call it "parallel" universe since if these two exist side by side, then they are parallel (of course, Spock is now in this new timeline so it means he must be missing in the old timeline, which wouldnt make sense ....(thinking out loud). So anyway, you can see how this can create the kind of mind-twisting confusion that only time travel can create.

My next question: how would you even refer to that in text? Would you say "Vulcan was destroyed in the changed destiny timeline"? You dont think that sounds a little...weird? Why dont we stick with new or alternate?

re the usage of alternate: the term "god" is used many times throughout the Star Trek universe - yet we are able to distinguish each usage depending on who we are talking about and in what context and we dont insist that everytime the term "god" is used, it has to mean the same god. Similarly, just because the term "alternate" has been used throughout, doesnt mean it is impossible to distinguish just *any* alternate timeline from the alternate timeline. Of course, if we call it new, that would solve that dilemma as well (which I dont think it is). – Distantlycharmed 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add fuel to the fire, Changed Destiny would actually honor part of the intent of the reboot, which is that there is destiny at work, it's necessary to develop suspense about the fate of (say) Kirk's or Spock's life long-term, and it's even necessary to explain some of the unlikelihoods of the plot. Witness: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1611247/20090512/story.jhtml -- --Aqaraza 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

MTV: Out of the entire universe, how do Elder Spock and Kirk happen to get stranded on the same planet? Are we expected to believe it's just a coincidence?

Kurtzman: One of the things we're playing to is the theme of destiny ... the idea that it wasn't actually random chance. It seems like random chance if you run into Spock in that cave, but it wasn't. And in some way, the time stream is trying to mend itself.

MTV: And how about Scotty? Is it a coincidence that he happens to be on that moon as well?

Kurtzman: It goes back to the idea that the time stream is trying to mend itself. These characters are essentially destined to find each other in one way or another - and that fate is literally bringing them together.

Re:Distantlycharmed - Yes, "awareness" is obviously what I had in mind. The "new" characters are aware of the "old" timeline - not necessarily about each and every action, but aware enough that a reference "new->old" might turn up in some in-universe context. However, the "old" characters are definitely not aware of the "new" timeline - which means that a reference "old->new" will not turn up, and we thus don't need a in-universe-compatible name to address the "new" from an in-old-universe article. This also answers your second question: There simply is no place for a sentence like "Vulcan was destroyed in the XYZ timeline" in any in-universe article - and if it's a production POV article, the sentence might as well be "Star Trek depicted the destruction of Vulcan." Finally, regarding the "god" comparison. I just feel that we shouldn't go out of our way to be as confusing as possible. A dozen alternatives to "alternate" have been brought up here, and each one of them is less confusing than just using the "alternate" moniker.

'Re:Aqaraza - nice find. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the system we currently have. I dont know what the big deal is. "Destiny" is a cheesy, soapy term, not encyclopedic at all, and is based on Kurtzman's rationale behind the direction he wanted his screenplay for Star Trek to go, i.e. "destiny" and the everything-happens-for-a-reason, please-note-the-depth-of-our-intentions platitudes. Which is nice and good, but still not anything we should put in here on the Star Trek encyclopedia to refer to the new timeline created. The term should really be as objective as possible. Nearly everyone you talk to will see this as the new or alternate timeline created and not "the new Star Trek Destiny". (??). And by the way, Kurtzman is also by no means the authority on Star Trek. I bet the fans here on MA know more about Star Trek than Kurtzman and Orci combined. – Distantlycharmed 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is running in circles right now - you don't like one suggestion, I don't like another... reasons described above, for everyone to see. I don't feel like repeating them yet another time. Can we perhaps get some more opinions? -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: '"awareness" is obviously what I had in mind. The "new" characters are aware of the "old" timeline - not necessarily about each and every action, but aware enough that a reference "new->old" might turn up in some in-universe context. However, the "old" characters are definitely not aware of the "new" timeline - which means that a reference "old->new" will not turn up, and we thus don't need a in-universe-compatible name to address the "new" from an in-old-universe article.'

There's no such thing as an "in-old-universe article". There's only the "in MA's universe" point of view. MA's POV isn't that of the 23rd century of the prime timeline, it isn't even that of the 24th century of the prime timeline. It's an omniscient, in-universe perspective from no earlier than: the 32nd century of a timeline which did originate in the (prime) events of all of canon not counting those of (alternate) STXI. So "whether original-timeline characters ever know of changed-destiny events" is totally moot. The only thing that's necessary here is for MA, with our far-future, in-a-universe-which-did-originate-in-prime, perspective, to remember that we already take for granted MA's ability to be aware of realities/timelines/universes/whatever which no Prime timeline character ever would. As described by myself back in January:

..."MA's POV must be considered: Our in-universe POV permits recording events form alternate timelines [...] there are things that take place in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films which are alternate timelines but still knowable in-universe by the idealized in-universe MA archivists. If we were to decide that in-universe future lookeruppers from some specific timeline (like, let's say, the "preferred" or "standard" one) couldn't actually have knowledge of such alternate events, then we would have a lot more to fix than film 11, and we would just as well get started on that right now instead of deciding what to do once film 11 will open. I say: Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline or unknowable event, for example the one in which chronexaline is used by Janeway in 2404, or the one in which the Battle of Procyon V takes place, or the one with Na'kuhl Nazis. MA's in-universe POV currently takes for granted that future historians or researchers will be able to access information about alternate timelines (to say nothing of other ostensibly unknowable events)."

..."MA so far has assumed that, in the universe in which this copy of Memory Alpha will exist, people can have knowledge of alternate universes/timelines/whatever"

..."see MA:POV: "Memory Alpha's primary point of view is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe – an archivist at Memory Alpha, the Federation library planet. Star Trek universe articles should be written as if the described person, object, or event actually existed or occurred, exactly like in a normal encyclopedia, but with an omniscient writer. " Omniscient means what I've been saying above: These archivists can (somehow) know about other realities, but the various alternate realities are separate realities. The Battle of Procyon V did not take place in the main/preferred POV, even if some in-universe library has information about it, presented as an alternative that was learned about in some fashion or another. Maybe they'll use a version of Daniels' temporal observatory."

..."we [MA] already can see into alternate timelines/parallel universes, at least to the extent necessary to represent [in the archive] all of canon. For events in our universe, we possess the omniscience that MA:POV indicates, and for other universes/timelines, we don't, but we do indeed still know some things (somehow)."

..."Regarding MA:POV, maybe something that alludes to the temporal observatory could be stated, in order to justify the in-universe capability to see into alternate timelines and other unknowable things, like USS Voyager (mimetic) and Museum of Kyrian Heritage. So far, most of the alternate timeline/universe stuff is knowable in the main timeline just because people here witnessed them. But not all. Definitely a few alternate timelines plus a couple of other ostensibly unknowable events are already treated here as knowable by the >32nd century MA archivists. I like the idea of "seeing into" better than the idea of "making a leap" or "visiting". Though, the policy has suited everything we've done so far. I really don't know what should be changed. Maybe just some statement about what's the main universe and what's not. How about: "...but with an omniscient writer, who can see certain events from alternate timelines and parallel universes""

So, the sticking point remains: what do we call it? Well, we all agree it has to be in-universe. This precludes calling it "New Timeline", because by the time of MA's POV, it will be centuries old and also likely not the only one. I support "Alternate Reality", both because it was stated in the movie (regardless whether Uhura (alternate) was talking about HER reality or Spock (Prime)'s one - they're both alternate, from each other's perspectives), and also because I don't agree with the argument that it's too generic, not specific enough. For now it is. All we need is an encyclopedic convention to distinguish the two, not some prediction, without evidence, about how >32nd century archivists might actually call it. Until such time as we might need yet another article about yet another Kirk from yet a second alternate reality without its own obvious distinguishing name, plain old "alternate reality" is just fine. --TribbleFurSuit 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)