For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
Suggest title change - "Resource policy"
Since it's always coming up whether "x is canon, y is non-canon" in terms of using it as a reference here, might I suggest that this be renamed as Resource policy, and we try and refer to things as valid and invalid resources, to avoid confusion with the true usage of canon (since things that are non-canon can be valid resources (for background information, etc)). This is not our policy on what is canon - we don't get to define that. Instead, it is a policy on what resources can be used in our articles, and should reflect that. -- Michael Warren | Talk 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Full agreement and support. This policy already does not really talk about what is canon and what not, but about "validity". The title should reflect that. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also agreed. I assume this is just a matter of a name change? --Alan 16:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Content policy?
This didn't go anywhere the last time, so I'd like to bring it up again, combined with another suggestion for the new title: Content policy - this page already describes what we'd like to have as content (and not just based on what resources), so this is actually a better title. It might also be slightly less confusing than "resource policy". -- Cid Highwind 12:50, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
- This name is much better than "resource policy", which encompasses far more than this one does already. The current policy is already pretty complex and detailed, and to expand to cover all resources for everything? That's getting to be a bit much. Content is more suggestive (to me) that it covers the main content. -- sulfur 12:57, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really think the "resource" suggestion failed so much because of the name, but rather because there isn't really a need to do this. I know why it's been suggested, and I support changing the name of this, but I don't think anymore that it will stop the pointless debates on what is canon, for the most part, like we want it to. That said, I'm still more inclined to this being called the "resource policy" than the "content policy," since the latter seems more heavy handed as it implies that it covers "what content can be created" rather then "what resources can be used to create content." - Archduk3 13:13, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
Splitting this up
I've taken some time to create a split version of the policy here. While I don't consider this to be a final draft, I think it's a good place to start if we're going to move towards something as described in the sections above. I'm not sure would could get entirely away from using the word "canon" with this, as it does tend to be the term that applies the best here, but I think listing the resources removed from the definition of what the site uses as canon might be a step in the right direction towards alleviating the issues we have. - Archduk3 21:54, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- That is a good beginning; I think it's something we are going to need to address especially given the discussion at Talk:Star Trek (video game) and the likelihood such discussion will come up again. 31dot (talk) 23:01, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I doubt that's going to be last of it no matter what we do, but I think this might help. Part of the reason I kept the word "canon" is that even if we had a policy about what "content" we would want or not want to be considered in-universe, in the end the word "canon" was going to come up either way. That said, it's worth noting that every time the words "canon" and "non-canon" are used in these you could replace them with "in-universe content" and "real world content", if anybody is interested in more radical changes. - Archduk3 23:26, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
Surprisingly, or not, this hasn't attracted much attention, so I've had too much time to think on it. I've made a few more wording changes, mostly removing the word "canon" from the polices, resulting in a "Content policy" (which canon would redirect to) and a "Resource policy". I've also added the text of the FAQ, since that's going to need to be mostly rewritten if we do this, and parts of it may be out of date already. The word "canon" is still going to come up, and the shortcuts and messages that use the word should most be fine even if we change the wording here. - Archduk3 19:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Last call to object before I make these changes. - Archduk3 10:10, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
Has a decision to "deprecate" TOS original effects really been made?
In a recent discussion it was mentioned that "remastered effects take precedent" - and to my surprise, this is really part of this policy page at the moment. I just wonder where (if at all) this has been decided. I could track the edit that added this from this page to our "Resource policy" page, it was made by Archduk3 back in April ([1]). If I interpret the revision history of that page correctly (there's a bunch of merges and splits going on), it was most likely an edit he did in his own user space before supplanting an edited policy version back to the "official" location. In the mess of all this, I might have lost track of where this was discussed in front of a larger audience, so please link to that discussion if it exists. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 08:55, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion being referred to is here; the statement seemed to be made out of some philosophical objection to the remastered episodes (the anon saying they feel their effects are "fan art" and the original had more "soul" than CGI) as well as a belief that the original effects somehow 'locked' what the effects look like (i.e. future changes are invalid) It was my understanding that we always went with the most recent version of an episode, regardless of the effects. Paramount owns Star Trek and they get to decide what it looks like(just like the redone original Star Wars films). 31dot (talk) 10:23, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
