Talk:The Star Trek Encyclopedia

Canon vs semi-canon
I don't understand the contrast here. the Encyclopedia contains plenty of speculation itself, sometimes noted and sometimes not, and is not an independent work based solely on canon. the same is true of the Chronology. The Technical Manual is on the other largely made up. Morwen - Talk 14:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nerds. The worst kind of nerds. That's the only people this canonicity argument matters to. The article Star Trek canon already makes that abundantly clear. For the purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about the book "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" none of this matters. Only a tiny fraction of an enormous reference book, of an official publication, put together by the actual production staff, is ever going to be disputed and even then by only the worst kind of pedants. It is 2021 and the text still included tags arguing this mess. I've rephrased and reordered it a little, I've copied a StarTrek.com reference already used in Star Trek canon, and put it back on Roddenberry, for what little relevance it actually has to this article. Readers can consider themselves obliquely warned that the Star Trek Encyclopedia/Omnipedia is an excellent reference but still not the final word, and to the refer back to the shows themselves. -- 109.77.207.230 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)