Talk:Star Trek canon

Untitled
That last bit reads alot more like a rant then actual encyclopedic content. Oberiko 01:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good after Woohookitty's clean up. 68.81.231.127 09:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intrepid class starship and deleted scenes.
On the Intrepid class starship page, I wrote:

"In addition, the bridge of an Intrepid class starship is a self-contained module that can detach itself from the ship in an emergency and manuever with thrusters."

This was based on: from "Star Trek: The Magazine". I ask here instead of the Intrepid class page as I am wondering if this magazine is canon. It (and other sources like it from people that worked on Star Trek) should be mentioned in the article. If not, I'll simply remove the sentence.

Also, are deleted scenes from movies canon? Martin Madden briefly appeared in a deleted scene in "Nemesis" and has his own article and was intended by the writers to be canon but was deleted and not shown on screen.

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Series and the various comic lines are not canon." 

Are deleted scenes canon? --Blue387 20:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Strictly, no: deleted scenes from anything should not be canon (maybe semi-canon at most and noted as such), unless they are restored as part of an episode/piece later; for example, the enhancements made to Star Trek: The Motion Picture upon its re-release. The extra material sometimes released with ST productions should not be considered canon as well (e.g., recent releases of Star Trek: Nemesis, etc.), should not be canon but semi-canon only and distinguished as such.  Ditto for magazine contributions/articles.


 * So, no: I don't believe there were any legitimate mentions in the series of the Intrepid class bridge module (or Galaxy class, for that matter) being detachable, so this isn't canon per se and should be noted as such, if at all. Thoughts?  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek or Star Trek ?
Hello to you all! Many of the ST articles I've perused (and edited thusly) recently contain both forms (i.e., Star Trek or Star Trek — italicised or not) to describe the 'ST universe'. As such, I believe this underlines a slightly significant issue – of (in)consistency or of (not) having a standard (to my knowledge) – regarding various Star Trek references on Wikipedia pages in general. A few questions:


 * (1) The first overall question that this begs is: what term and how should the ST universe be referred to in toto: Star Trek (plain) or Star Trek (italicised)?


 * (2) Next: which of the terms should be used to describe the original series: the term Star Trek (italicised; the genuine name for the original series) or Star Trek: The Original Series (or ST:TOS/ variation) (not the original name, but used to distinguish it from the various incarnations and from the larger 'universe')?


 * (3) What, if any, confusion will or can result from the varying usage/appearance of this term?  That is: will someone infer that Star Trek (italicised) infer the original series or universe?  Or will they infer that Star Trek (plain) infers the universe, a general reference, and not the original show, et al.?

Note that I'm not generally referring to wikilinks in Wikipedia – e.g., Star Trek fictional universe – (which should likely be all one way or another italicised or not). just in-text references everywhere.

So, I think a standard must be developed or adhered to with using this term in Wikipedia (perhaps by consulting and comparing to 'canon' reference works, et al.), and I'll go with that. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite for Paramounts definition of canon
I see this talk page hasn't been used in a while, but hopefully someone can answer my question. Is there any reference to Paramounts definition of what is canon and what isn't? I am working on a new Star Trek book article, and want to have all the references in there before I add the article to Wikipedia. Thanks, Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 06:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found this at the Star Trek website. I think it something that can be used as a reference if anyone was wondering. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html . Ch u ck(contrib) 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek VI
What parts of Star Trek VI are supposed to be non-canon? Adam Bishop 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Star Trek canon
Lately I've been working on a page to complement this one, that will cover inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon. For the purposes of that page, I will take canon to be the most common definition, including the five live series and ten movies.

This page would be in part a replacement to the now-deleted page on continuity violations in ENT. But unlike that page, it will not cover possible violations and theories/explainations to resolve them, and only include confirmed violations with sources. It will also be extended to cover inconsistencies between the other series and movies, which do not involve ENT.

The prototype for the page is in my user space, here: User:Ritchy/Inconsistencies in Star Trek canon. I invite everyone to collaborate in building the page, so that it may be ready for inclusion in wikipedia swifftly. -- Ritchy 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

New page
This page is tagged for clean up. Furthermore, it is unsourced and, IMHO, could be better structured and written. Consequently, I remade the page from scratch. The new page is structure by material rather then by type of canon. It eliminates the "semi-canon", "unofficial canon" and all the other fan-made divisions of canon, and instead has a clear list of canon, not canon, and disputed/unclear areas. Finally, and most importantly, it is sourced with relevant quotes. You can see the new page here: Ritchy/Canon (Star Trek).

Obviously, I believe that we should replace the current page with this new page. But I will not do this unilaterally. Instead, I would like to have some feedback from the people around here. How is the new page? Is anything unclear or missing? Should something from the current page be included in the new one?

Looking forward to all your feedback! -- Ritchy 04:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the that page much better than the one presently here. There are some points I would like to address with it: Voyages of the Imagination has some excellent and sourceable info regarding the decanonisation of TAS in the mid-1980s for example, to the extent that novel writers and the comic strips weren't allowed to use TAS elements.  What canon really means is "that stuff which we have committed not to contradict, or at least to retcon".  In fact, though, the writers of Star Trek (including Gene, as noted) have never really considered itself bound by previously established facts, and where they do contradict established facts, have often left the fans to rationalise this, rather than creating an actual comic-book like retcon.  Saying "the books are not canon" is saying "we will not consider ourselves bound by the books, and will not refer to events therein".   Morwen - Talk 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week. There's only been one reply, and it's a positive one. So I'll go ahead and change the page. -- Ritchy 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New page talk

 * NOTE: This discussion took place on the talk page of Ritchy/Canon (Star Trek), while the new page was under development. As the new page is now up and this user page will be deleted, I've taken the liberty of transferring the discussion here.

Still thinking this revision takes this concept in too absolute terms. Not sure where this should go precisely, but is a useful quote from Marco Palmieri [who is the Pocket Star Trek editor]


 * "canon refers to the body of information the show and film writers adhere to when crafting new stories."

he denounces the usage "personal canon" and suchforth. He notes that "it's also frequently and incorrectly used in place of the word 'continuity' and 'consistency'.  These terms are not interchangeable."

Star Trek has never really considered itself bound by what was on screen before, though. so isn't the definition effectively meaningless? They also quote Paula Block, who notes that Jeri Taylor's books were quasi-canon for a while, and that Gene had a very fluid attitude to canon, maybe even declaring bits of the 3rd season of TOS to be non-canon.

Block notes that "life isn't long enough to spend a lot of time dwelling on non-issues" like canon.

Morwen - Talk 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure where you're going with this? The first part about Palmieri's quotes seem like they would better fit in the page about Canon (fiction), rather then here, as they sound to me as they define/discuss the general concept of canon rather then how it specificly applies in the Star Trek franchise. Block's quote about Roddenberry's attitude to canon is already in the article (reference #4 FYI) as is the information about Taylor's books (although I don't have a quote from Block specifically on that, I do have some other references).
 * Regarding your edit/question on the article page, "who by?" is by Mike Sussman, producer of Enterprise and the one who made that specific prop. The reference is already in the text, though I'll add it to the image caption as well to avoid future ambiguity. You're right, I should include unreferenced quotes in the image captions and assume people will dig through the article to find the relevant reference. -- Ritchy 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you think him saying "it shouldn't be taken as hard canon" can be turned into "it is not canon", despite all these statements from Paramount and from Pocket and other sources that canon really isn't a black and white thing. In any case, Mike Sussman isn't CBS/Paramount: the last episode of Ent was aired May 13, 2005, implying he was not speaking with an official hat on (as production would have wound up before then).   Right now the person who decides what is Trek canon is going to be J. J. Abrams, after all. Morwen - Talk 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He says, paraphrasing, "Those bios are just something we slapped together quickly, without double-checking the facts. Don't take it too seriously." In the complete quote, he even calls attention to the fact that his bio says Archer commanded the Enterprise from 2150 to 2160, while in the show he was seen in command from 2151 to 2161 (although I didn't include this bit in the page, to keep the quote short and to the point -- should I add it?) Yes, I take that as him saying it's not canon. How do you take it?
 * I know canon is not a black and white thing. That's the point I try to bring accross in this page, by illustrating all the on-going canon debates. If an official source debates the interpretation of the viewscreen, or other illegible material seen in the episodes, and insists that they are canon, then I would love to add it to present the conflicting viewpoitns. However, I have never seen such a source. If you have one, that would be quite helpful. -- Ritchy 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Sussman may have been talking after the cancellation of ENT, but he was talking about something he did while the series was going on. He wasn't making a new statement, he was recalling something that happened back then. Saying he had no autority because ENT was over by then is off-topic; he had some level of autority back when it happened, and that's what counts. JJ Abrams will have some autority on the upcoming movie, but not on the entire Star Trek Franchise! He'll get to decide what is canon in the movie, in the sense that he gets to decide what happens in the movie, but he most definitly does not get to decide what is canon throughout the franchise. Not even Gene Roddenberry had that kind of power.
 * At any rate, I've added some text to the intro paragraph (among other edits) today, to make it clearer that the notion of "canon" in this case is not set in stone but is fluid and open to debate. I hope this update addresses some of the issues you had with the page. -- Ritchy 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review; December 17, 2006
Hello, there. I'm Jerichi, and I'll be your Good Article Reviewer today.

Being somewhat of a Star Trek fan, I am quite pleased to see someone nominate an article for Good Article which is related to Star Trek. Although I do like the series, don't take this as a bias towards this article achieving Good Article status, as for I shall look at it from the guidelines given to me, and pass it or fail it based on that, as I am supposed to do.

This article looks like it has been dilegnetly worked on, and its quite complete, in my humble opinion. But, to give you and myself an overview of things that need to be done, regardless of passing or failing this as a GA, I'll give you my checklist. The "-" indicates that something needs fixing, the "=" indicates that it is of decent quality, and the "+" indicates that it is of great quality, but mind you, this doesn't mean it is perfect. If there is a "~" next to it, that means it is borderline with the next rating. "=~" would be borderline "+" and "=" for example.

b (Structure: Well structured. All portions are clearly defined.): Verdict: + c (MoS: Everything checks out fine here. Although there may be some minor details I overlooked, it seems to be good.): Verdict: + d (Jargon: This article basically is about jargon used when talking about Star Trek. All the words which need links have links. Not much to say.): Verdict: + b (Inline citations: A large amount of these. I'm actually suprised by the amount.): Verdict: + c (Reliable: From the sources given, and the article itself, everything seems to be nice and reliable.): Verdict: + d (OR: Too many quotations, links, and genral refrences to claim anything to be OR.) : Verdict: + b (Focused: It seems to stay on topic. Nothing really concernes me here.): Verdict: + b (All significant views: Since most of the signifiacant views are that of the ones who create the seires, and all the names that would have any say over the status of canon (which seems to be only Gene), this checks out.): Verdict: + b (Lack of images does not in itself exclude GA: I'd like one more image. This is giving example of canon media, so I'd like one more example of something that is considered either canon or non-canon, preferably the latter. A scene from an episode which has been identified as non-canon would be a good thing, and explain the reasons why it isn't. This isn't needed though.): Verdict: = c (Non-free images have fair use rationales: All rationales check out fine, and are under fair use rules.): Verdict: +
 * 1) It is well written.
 * a (Prose: It flows quite well, but still keeps the ability to be able to read parts of it without the portions being totally dependent on each other. The only thing I can't say I like is the one sentence sections. Try and expand those if you can.): Verdict: =~
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (References: All of the refrences are from offical websites, interviews, and a few other misc. sources which seem to check out ok.) Verdict: + :
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (Major aspects: All of the forms of media which may be questioned as canonical or not are here, and they match up with the other articles as being part of the Star Trek series.): Verdict: +
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (Fair representation: I don't see any problem with this. All viewpoints, which, in this case, is mostly of Gene, his staff, and fans, seems to be covered.): Verdict: +
 * 1) It is stable.
 * (No fights have broken out over anything, and no edit wars have happened. This also seems to be a pretty stable topic matter.) Verdict: +
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (Tagged and captioned: Yes, yes. All tagged and captioned, and the pictures add to the article as for the refer to the objects being discussed.): Verdict: +

After this review, I can't see anything so wrong with this article that it shouldn't be a GA.

Congratulations on your new Good Article status.

Best wishes and Happy Holidays. Jeri-kun 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Retrieve
I'm thinking of adding a picture of Colonel West and the Operation Retrieve briefing from Star Trek VI to the "Movies" section. That scene was not part of the theatrical release but part of the home release, making its canon status uncertain. I think it would be a good example. The problem is, I don't own the movie, so I can't take a screenshot. There is a very good shot on Memory Alpha, but I do not know if we're allowed to trans-wiki pictures. Can anyone fill me in on the policy for this case? Can we take a fair-use image from another source and use it in Wikipedia? -- Ritchy 16:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Trek Remastered
Since the TV series section talks about canon issues with regards to edited versions of episodes, I think it's only fair to also add the Remastered episodes of TOS into the equation. To my knowledge Paramount has never said one way or the other whether Remastered is to be considered canon, or if it isn't. And it's an argument that could occur. Imagine, for example, if a TOS episode were remastered and someone decided to give a certain planet (let's say Talos IV for argument's sake) a couple of moons, to make the SFX look prettier -- while the original version never showed any moons at all. Later, someone writes a novel or a teleplay or a screenplay in which it's necessary to state that Talos IV either has moons or it doesn't. So which version do you use? Remastered or Original? And what if Remastered is the only version available by that time? It's an important part of the canon argument, I think. 23skidoo 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any source saying that the remastering will change canon information like the number of moons around planets? Because all the information I found says that what they are doing is simply making the episodes "prettier". StarTrek.com lists minor changes, like backgrounds and starship exteriors looking nicer. And this before and after comparison of Balance of Terror confirms that all they did is improve, not change, some graphics. I'm sorry to say, the appearance of the comet on the viewscreen or the exact shade of orange of the bird painted on the Romulan ship are not improtant parts of the canon debate. I cut down on your text, to make it more to-the-point and factual. -- Ritchy 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but the placement of actors in scenes where they never were (which reportedly happened in several episodes - extras, not main characters), and the physical alteration of planetary appearances is a matter of canon. A few color tweaks is not what I'm talking about. In addition, there are technical matters - for example in one early episode Scotty is shown phasering a door. In the original, no beam was shown; in the remastered version a beam was added. Not important, you might say -- tell that to the many Trek fans who are deeply interested in the technology. Perhaps that particular beam weapon Scotty used was never supposed to have a visible laser beam? When Where No Man Has Gone Before was remastered, there were calls to replace the infamous "James R. Kirk" tombstone. Thankfully that did not occur. The cut down text is fair -- it covers my point -- but when I'm talking about canon issues, I'm talking about things a bit more fundamental than a color difference. And I attest the appearance of the comet you use as an example is an important part of the canon debate. I'll give you an example that is not taken from any episode but which is a plausible situation; let's say there's an episode of TOS in which the Enterprise visits a planet that is shown as being emerald green. Along comes Remastered as it's decided to make the planet look more like earth. No more emerald green, now it's blue and, well, earth-like. Along comes a writer - perhaps a screenplay writer, or perhaps a novelist or better still a comic book writer/artist (since the comics are making a comeback). He is writing a sequel to said episode and wants to describe/depict said planet. And let's say for some reason the plot hinges on what the planet looks like. This author wants to be true to canon ... so what version does he follow? You see where I'm getting at. There's a difference between remastering a show to remove dust specks from film and restore elements that have been lost over time, but once you start adding or altering elements, it becomes a thorny issue. It's really no different than someone taking the Sherlock Holmes "canon" and deciding to update it a little by tweaking the occasional word here or there -- to those who don't care or who aren't that deep into the Holmes mythology, it's no different than changing that shade of orange on the ship. But to those who are, it's a big deal, indeed. Oh, and if I did have a source re: moons and planets, I would have included it in the article, right? Anyway, Balance of Terror is a bad example to use in your defence of Remastered because it was, IIRC the first episode to be so redone. From what I have been told more wholesale changes have been made to more recently remastered episodes, to the point where even Remastered supporters are starting to go "hey, wait a minute" (and no, I don't have a link - spend a few hours reading the TrekBBS and you'll find people other than me squawking about it). 23skidoo 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Animated Series and StarTrek.com
The "Official" FAQ "What is Canon?" has not been updated since 2003-07-10. However as I understand it CBS/Paramount explicitly made the Animated series canon around the time of its DVD launch. Recently the CBS Senior Director of Product Development, Paula Block (who is in charge of all Trek licensed products), stated "Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that." That last comment certainly seems to include the Animated Series in canon to me. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How long ago the page was updated isn't relevant - official Paramount policy doesn't expire over time. If there was an official change since then though, I would expect some kind of official announcement. I've not seen one.
 * "Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens." When people talk about Star Trek on TV, they usually mean the live-action shows and exclude TAS. The fact this quote groups together TV and Movies (which were all live-action) and comes after an interview about how TAS isn't canon seems to support this interpretation. Certainly we shouldn't rush to reverse the non-canon status of TAS, well-established since Roddenberry's days, simply based on an ambiguously-worded comment made in passing. -- Ritchy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It also pretty clearly includes TOS Remastered, and the 2008/2009 film as canon. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll update the page to include the new movie once it comes out - it's not canon until it does. We already mention TOS remastered in the article. -- Ritchy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:STTNGTM.jpg
The image Image:STTNGTM.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The new Trek film
I think the new Trek film should be mentioned in this article, and have done so. Based upon information at hand, there is clear indication that the film will have substantial differences in design, and the new trailer (released on the Net on 6 March 09) also reveals some substantial backstory changes. So I think it is reasonable to say that the canon status of the 2009 film is, at present, unknown. The original statement that "all Trek films are canon" was outdated because it was based upon website content from 2006, before the new film entered production, so we won't know till May whether Trek 11 actually is canonical, or establishes a new line of continuity and a new canon. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is, since Nero's time travel created an alternate reality, does that mean that all of the original series and the original movies are non-canon? --CommanderWiki35 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about Star Trek canon, not the continuity in the fictional universe that is created by canon material. There is a difference, and it's an important one. Star Trek canon is a list of real-world material that are considered canon in the franchise, like the series and movies. The Star Trek continuity is the list of fictional events that took place in canon material, like the Borg invasion and the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. The new movie reset the continuity, and as a result we no longer know if the Borg invasion or the Occupation will take place in this new continuity. But it did not reset canon. Everything that was canon before the movie still is. The only difference is that if you follow the sequence of events described in canon, then this latest one cancels out most of the fictional events that took place in previous canon material. -- 65.39.12.140 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (actually Ritchy, but I'm away from my account right now).

I'm not sure that Ritchy is correct in saying that the new timeline created by Nero cancels out previous events in the previous Star Trek timeline. Rather, we will be watching events in the new timeline, which could not have existed without the previous continuity. Quantum mechanics postulates the existence of mutiple, congruent, and concurrent timelines in multiple universes. Nero's ship, traveling through an artificially created singularity, merely shifted our focus from what I will call the 'Roddenberry Timeline' to what one might call the 'Abrams Timeline'. 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs)

Why is this article in Wikipedia?
It belongs in Memory Alpha. Its not encyclopedic and would not appear in World Book or other paper encyclopedias Magnum Serpentine (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cage
Is the cage cannon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.131 (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

75.191.176.246 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC) yes.

Other material
It says here that none of the events happening in Star Trek games are considered canon, but the 200 Light years skipped through the Forge in the game Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force from 2000 were included into the series' story line by the producers, at least I once read so. If a proof for this can be found, should this exception then be noted here? Smintili (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

POV & Dubious
The POV on this article is far from neutral. It presents Star Trek canon as a black and white issue, beyond the token line in the first paragraph, when the issue has never been and never can be a black and white issue. TAS, which was non-canon between 1988 and 2006, has since been "upgraded" to, at the very least, a gray, semi-canon. Efforts to incorporate this into the article, with citations, have been reverted as "original research". I would at least like more opinions on that, as well as the idea that this entire article is original research then by the same token. Also, by the standing assertions in the article, and on this talk page (above), the 2009 film is canon, but efforts to incorporate that as well have been reverted as "lacking citation", which it shouldn't need, and then as the previously mentioned original research. If wikipedia is going to have an article on the subject, it should be worded as neutrally as possible.

For reference, here are the citations that were rejected (including a fourth, "new" citation), all of which are more recent (at least when posted) then the current citations in the same areas (and way back machined for convenience). - Archduk3 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * StarTrek.com canon database - retrieved 27th August 2010
 * The Animated Series Gets Real - retrieved from version as of 16th June 2008
 * Canon Fodder: Star Trek: The Animated Series - 5th June 2006
 * EDITOR'S PICK: The Animated Series, at Last! - 29th November 2006


 * Changes to the official website subsequent to your comments address these concerns. Star Trek 2009 is clearly considered non-canon. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's news to me...do you have a source to substantiate it? 2009 may largely take place in an alternate timeline, but that doesn't make it non-canon. Additionally, does startrek.com even use the word 'canon' at any point? Perhaps that website isn't the best indicator. Doniago (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only use of the word canon since the update in regards to what is or isn't is the use of "Canon Info" for the in-universe section of the Database. This includes information from both film 11 and TAS. Where is there anyone still connected with the franchise saying these things aren't? - Archduk3 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
Quote from user Mattbuck: "Original research is not allowed, though i grant it is strange how shields seemed to go AWOL during the dominion war"

The evidence for that is visual, and in the canon. Shouldn't it be posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.176.246 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is your own interpretation of the show. Lacking citations, assertions of e.g. "problem"s with the series' continuity is WP:OR. Mattbuck's removal of the content was appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Format
I've reverted the page to a format that makes the text actually readable, and fixes the formatting issues that were introduced when the article was needlessly broken down into sections. Regarding those sections, the TV series weren't subed under the heading "TV series", and the text itself points out that Roddenberry didn't view canon on a series by series basis, so why would presenting the text that way be considered a good idea? The sections themselves didn't even bother to update the references or text to deal with the reformat, meaning that text relevant to other sections was mostly "stranded" in the wrong location. For example, most of the TAS relevant info wasn't even in the TAS section. The "Alternate Timelines" section was completely uncited, and not even in line with the current references on the page. Since when has "Un-televised events" been more descriptive of "Fiction novels" than actually using the words fiction novels? The few wording changes not already addressed were either minor or introduced a clear bias as well as the poor formatting that was tagged. - Archduk3 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a discussion regarding the contentious changes. I've given both you and MikeWazowski edit-warring notices on your Talk pages, as the back-and-forth on the article never should have reached the level that it did, and at this time I believe both of you are too involved to be editing the disputed parts of the article directly. I would ask that both of you wait for a clear consensus to be reached here before making any further edits to the disputed portions of the article. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the fact that Archduk3 ignored eight months of contributions from other editors in reverting the article back to one of his preferred versions (as shown in this diff) to be completely beyond the realm of normal editing - especially considering that Archduk3 is practically a WP:SPA, having little history of contributions outside this article. I cannot support this kind of rollback of legitimate contributions from this editor. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently MikeWazowski can't be bother do defend his opinion or even address the issues I've raised here, since he has to resort to attacking my credibility. I would simply point out that this attack is coming from someone who didn't even bother to reintroduce the notice that drew my attention in the first place when reverting the page to his "his preferred version". I started this discussion before the last round of revisions as well, so I wasn't the one who couldn't be bother to discuss this either, nor is there much in those sacrosanct eight months beyond the rearrangement of the article into something significantly less readable and helpful, and that's not even touching on the blatant bias introduced. If I had been here the day after those changes were made, I would have done the same thing, and I'm sure that would have been within this "realm of normal editing" that these edits are accused of not being a part of. As it stands, I haven't seen even one point for having the article subdivided into uselessness, and I have made several for why it shouldn't be, so maybe someone should sure make sure MikeWazowski isn't supporting "legitimate contributions" that can only be defended by attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them. - Archduk3 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All things being equal, I'm inclined to agree. Are there any objections to Archduk's edits based on the merits of the edits themselves? Doniago (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sacred"
As far as I can tell from a quick skim, this article is right now a laundry list of what is(n't) canon. It doesn't really address what people outside Trek-dom have to see about Star Trek canon-ness. As a small step toward broadening and anchoring the coverage, it might just be worth noting that the author of the Washington Post's Into Darkness review called the Star Trek canon "sacred". Probably one of few times the Star Trek canon *itself* has been commented on, even if in passing. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160819105802/https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/the-kelvin-timeline-official-name-for-the-new-star-trek-universe/vp-AAhGc7S to https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/the-kelvin-timeline-official-name-for-the-new-star-trek-universe/vp-AAhGc7S

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

TV versus Movies
The intellectual property rights over Star Trek divides it into two parts. CBS Television Studios through its ownership of Desilu controls Star Trek (the Original Series) and Paramount controls the spinoff shows and the Original and Next Generation movies. The courts contended that the characters in the CBS Star Trek: Original Series and their identical counterparts played by the same actors in the Paramount films were different entities. If this view is taken of canon, it means that the original TV show and the original Movies take place in parallel universes.Hotspur23 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Well, for those following, IMO just another reason not to allow anonymous editors on wikipedia. To the article, I think it was a mistake to remove the list of series that are considered canon. If you want to remove it from the lead (although I think it a perfectly good place, gets right to the point), it must be included elsewhere. This article deals heavily with the ambiguous nature of the canon, so to leave out the list that startrek.com gives as official canon is really a mistake. StarHOG (Talk) 11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe the wording should be: "The official Star Trek website defines canon as comprising the eight television series as well as the 13 films in the franchise." It's a bit more specific. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Our disruptive anonymous friend is blocked now.


 * I don't think there was an issue with having the complete list of series mentioned in the lead. There were listed there for the entire 15 year history of the article. And when the whole point is to clarify this ambiguous topic, probably best to be specific. That's my two cents anyway. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The authority to define what is or isn't canon
This isn't specifically an issue with Star Trek, but with copyrighted works in general. A lot of people assume, incorrectly, that copyright ownership confers the authority to decide hat is or isn't canon. This is absolute nonsense. Copyright ownership is a legal concept, and EXCLUSIVELY a legal concept, and is irrelevant outside a courtroom setting. Conversely, "canon" is legally meaningless. The authority over a franchise, including the authority to declare what is or isn't canon, comes from being the author of that franchise, though it can be handed down to appointed successors. In the case of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry is the author, and he passed his authority to Rick Berman about a year before he died. Berman, in turn, was in the process of handing the reins over to Manny Coto when Enterprise was canceled. Neither Berman, nor Coto, nor anyone else who worked with Gene Roddenberry ceded anything to Alex Kurtzman.

Since this is a philosophical point, rather than an empirical one, it doesn't belong in the article. However, the article should use phrases like "CBS claims that X is canon" rather than "X is canon" when discussing the Kurtzman era.


 * You're correct that who does or doesn't get to decide canon is not a legal issue. But you're also incorrect in saying that the authority over a franchise (specifically the authority to declare what is or isn't canon) belongs to the "author" of the franchise, or that they could pass down that "authority" (which, again, is not a legal authority).  The only definitive canon is what an individual thinks is canon.  Anything remotely "official" does indeed come from the owner of the franchise.  "CBS claims that x is canon" is exactly the same as saying that "x is canon".Rcarter555 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Paramount's current canon policy?
The first line of this article affirms that "The official Star Trek website defines canon as comprising the television series and feature films of the franchise." This was true for a time, however I find no explicit definition of canon in that website in the present moment. And it seems that it was removed a long time ago. The last incarnation of the definition I could find was this (taken from https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/canon.htm):

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind."

Now, this is far more ambiguous than the first version. Specially the part about fans, writers and producers being in disagreement, and the lack of a single voice or arbiter to decide. These changes, coupled with the eventual removal of the definition altogether, seem to imply that Paramount doesn't offer anymore an "official definition of canon". So maybe the first line of the article should be edited to reflect the ambiguity of the subject.84.124.213.187 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the citation refers to the fact that in the page site map the database, which contains info on aliens, planets, etc. for each show and movie, is referred to as "The Official Star Trek Canon". I do agree that this is a long way from "the official Star Trek website defines canon as..." etc. I'm not sure how else to word it however. Clearly someone involved in making the website thinks there's a thing called "The Official Star Trek Canon" (in title case, no less) and it has something to do with the website's database feature, but there's no further specific info on what that means. --Cyllel (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Super difficult to get a straight answer. I think the problem lies in that the people that make Trek, that oversee it, just look at it as making good stories. They don't obsess over it like the fans do. Additionally, I hate it when someone interviews a producer or a showrunner or a creator and ask them about canon and the person says, "Yeah, my stuff is canon." I'm not even sure who in the chain of command would be able to say what is and what isn't canon, and if it could be reversed by a person in that role 5 years from now. StarHOG (Talk) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's basically a marketing thing. The people that make Trek know that some people in the audience care about canon so they do occasionally refer to a thing called canon, or the "Star Trek universe" or whatever, but they also remain suitably vague about it so they can change it later if they need to. As it stands however I do agree it's a little weird for the article to definitively say "the website says X" when the truth is much more like "There's a single phrase used on one page on the website that can be taken to imply X". I think ideally it should be something along the lines of "the majority of authorities and fans agree that X" which seems closer to the truth, but again, hard to find a source. --Cyllel (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not very relevant to the article, but I wonder if, at this point, one can talk about "The Canon" (in singular) when dealing with a franchise so big, spanning several decades, and with very different production teams involved. As in, one could probably talk about the "TOS canon", the "TNG canon" and so forth, as defined by their respective production teams. But there's little sense in seeing the new series as expanding, redefining or retconning older series, that came around 50 years ago. Once their creators aren't even around anymore. I think the authority of a producer/director in defining canon should be limited to the specific series he's working in. Again, just a thought.


 * I also noticed that the official website cites some facts that don't seem to come from series/movies, but only from novels/comics. For example, they mention a second five-year mission in Kirk's biography, yet that never happens in any filmed material, as far as I know. So the criteria the website uses for defining "official Star Trek facts" seem to be rather blurry. 84.124.213.187 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up again due to recent edits. The problem is that there does not appear to be any kind of current canon policy available, and simply citing the website's database's existence is clearly synthesis as it does not actually contain a statement on what is or isn't canon. All we can really do with current sources is say things along the lines of "this is how the word canon is currently used on one page of the website" or "this is how Star Trek canon used to be defined" or maybe "this is what fans generally say canon is". --Cyllel (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As the maker of those recent edits, I feel obliged to chime in here! Perhaps the opening of the article should be somewhat more expansive so we do not have to struggle with simplistic phrasing to describe a complex subject. For instance, the opening could read something like:
 * This is of course just a basic draft&mdash;feel free to suggest alterations and/or additions. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk &bull; contributions) 01:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thoughts, anyone? If not, I'll make this the opening paragraph in a few days. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk &bull; contributions) 16:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me, tbh. It's probably not ideal to have this much detail in an intro but considering the topic there isn't an accurate way to describe it using less detailed language. --Cyllel (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence is pretty poorly constructed considering it uses the word 'canon' twice. Perhaps the second occurrence should be replaced with an explanation of what being canon actually means. Similarly, the second sentence should be expanded to clarify that we're talking about ST canon, not the concept of canon in general. DonIago (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've taken into account your feedback and added a modified version of the paragraph to the article. Feel free to revise it if you want. :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk &bull; contributions) 00:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also realized that the section on the idea that only stuff approved by Gene Roddenberry should be canonical would work better as a second paragraph in the opening rather than a tiny section with little change of expanding further, so I moved that. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk &bull; contributions) 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also realized that the section on the idea that only stuff approved by Gene Roddenberry should be canonical would work better as a second paragraph in the opening rather than a tiny section with little change of expanding further, so I moved that. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk &bull; contributions) 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

nature of the canon
What is the purpose of "canon", is it just a fan "intellectual" process, or is it officially used by Paramount? How much does "canonicity" influence the writers? When did the concept emerge? Was it even relevent during the TOS era, where essentially there series was almost exclusively episodic?How relevant was it during TNG, where the episodic model remained dominant although "story arcs" became more influential in later series. Or was it really only developed for DS9 which was much closer to a "soap opera in space" concept? 91.84.189.190 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Essentially, canon is the body of work determined by those who own the franchise to be official, which more or less is limited to what's been shown on screen. It's not a fan creation; indeed, fans have no control over what's considered canon. The concept originated well before Star Trek, as evidenced at canon (fiction). DonIago (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always thought of it as the agreed upon continuity that new writers can use as a starting point. From minor details like a character's name and rank to bigger things such as how the transporter or warp drive works as well as character relationships. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)