Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Star Trek articles

Star Trek articles
Now, that the period of unhealthy activity around those articles is over, I think it is time to renew a civilized discussion, picking up where the previous one ended. It is obvious that many of our visitors are shocked with those articles being present on Wookieepedia, just look at the Talk:Jean-Luc Picard and Talk:Mirror, Mirror. Recently, we even had an unfortunate accident, which resulted in a newcomer being banned and all of those aritcles being fully-protected. It also attracted attention to this slippery topic on both the starwars.com and TheForce.net message boards. And believe me, I wouldn't risk getting into more trouble for this if not for the 10 words that were almost pressed out of Leeland Chee.

Before we go any further, please familiarize youself with the actual article in question. I got the impression that many of controversialists about this topic aren't even aware of the article's nature:
 * Page 1
 * Page 2
 * Page 3
 * Page 4
 * Page 5

As you might have noticed, this Mirror, Mirror article is unlike other "ambiguous" articles from Challenge or Polyhedron. While articles from those 2 magazines are actual RPG adventures, written from IU perspective but possibly unlicesned, the InQuest 39 article doesn't deal with the universe at all. It deals with the card game. On the very first page the authors admit that Decipher didn't plan to mix the universes - they did. And then they go straight to presenting their 8 dream cards and discussing how they might affect the gameplay. Some of you may mistake the single line "Transported to a galaxy far, far away, Picard and company find a new frontier to explore - and a new enemy in the Empire" for an IU-basis for the crossover. But let's read further, on page 4 we see the line "If Emperor Palpatine discovered a gateway to another galaxy..." which makes it clear this is all no more that a "What If?" scenario.

Additionally, all information in the articles like Mars or Sergey Rozhenko comes from the lore of those cards, not the article itself. Now, we as sure as Hell consider the lore of all cards from all Star Wars games to be canonical, yes, except for the fact that those 8 cards from the article were never printed. Those cards do not exist in any Star Wars game, so how can they be anything more than dream cards, I do not know.

Now, to Chee's comment. What the man said, was:

For Heaven's sake, I wish he was a bit more concrete. Yes, he did not say Inquest was unlicensed, he said he doesn't know if it was. But hold on a minute. He's not just some guy, he's the Keeper of the Holocron. If he doesn't know if the material is licensed, he probably wouldn't have in his database, correct? And this is indeed supported by the fact that Star Trek-related stuff is not in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia: if it was present in the Holocron, it would be in TCSWE just like anything else.

We were also fortunate to receive additional clarification from Mr. Nathan Butler. That's we said (yeah, lots of text, but it's relevant):

So, what's the man said to us is that the article and the stuff in it is non even Non-canon, it's just an article. And let's allow some common sence, people, even if it was licensed, the nature of the article itself would make in non-canon, just like with the Visions of the Blade, Into the Great Unknown, or even Into the Garbage Chute, Flyboy. The latter one is a very good example: Wizards posted several miniature scenarios that mix characters from various eras or exploit a 'What If?" approach to the universe. Even though posted on their website among canonical stuff, those scenarios are infinities at best.

So, let's sum it up. Arguments for deletion as being unlicensed fanon are:
 * 1) The nature of the article. It deals with the game mechanics and doesn't have a single IU line.
 * 2) We cannon use lore of the cards that never saw print.
 * 3) The article is pure 'What If?" and speculation. We don't deal with that.
 * 4) Lucasfilm would never authorize Star Wars/Star Trek crossover simply because they have no license to Star Trek (yeah).
 * 5) Chee's words.
 * 6) Notable absence of the material in question from the TCSWE.
 * 7) Butler's explanation.
 * 8) It is simply wrong for Wookieepedia to confuse readers, stating that an IU connection between Star Wars and Star Trek exists, while it does not.

Arguments for keeping as it is (I'll save myself some future time and answer to the ones that have been already given elsewhere, ok?):
 * 1) Chee didn't say it wasn't official, he said he wasn't aware of it being licensed
 * 2) *Answered above. The absence of Star Trek material from the The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia means that Chee doesn't have in the Holocron and therefore it is not in canon.
 * 3) Inquest may sue us if we're wrong!
 * 4) *Ridiculous. If Lucasfilm does not care about mistakes we as the wikia make (and we do make some), then some magazine certainly wouldn't care either.
 * 5) Nathan Butler is nobody
 * 6) *Sorry, but I have to disagree. The guy has written at least one canonical comic story that passed LFL's approval, which means that he has a better idea of how the process of licensing in LFL works, than we do.
 * 7) Unlicensed means ambig
 * 8) *Here comes the tricky one. The way I always saw it, ambig means that we do not know if it was licensed or not. Thousands and thousands of articles about SW movies, games and books were published in various newspapers, magazines and websites all over the world. They do not need the license to write about Star Wars in any form. Also, the whole term "ambiguously canon" is used exclusively on Wookieepedia, it's not in Holocron or anywhere else. Ambig means we do not have info, but once we do, it's either licenced and G/T/C/S or even N-canon, or it's unlicensed fanon or "fair use".
 * 9) The article is meant to be a serious look at a cross-over
 * 10) *Wrong. The article itself states that Decipher didn't authorize it, Chee's comment means that LFL also didn't authorize it. It's just some game writers creating dream cards for fun.
 * 11) We don't merge the content of other ambiguous sources into one page
 * 12) *It's because stuff from RPG's may be canonized by other sources - look at Prophets of the Dark Side for example. A Star Trek crossover, however, will never be. Besides, it's not ambigous anymore.

So, here we come to the vote, which will affect all of the Star Trek articles listed on the Mirror, Mirror page under appearances section. I really hope you that you didn't skip all of the above.  Mauser  Comlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete as fanon

 * 1)  Mauser  Comlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable discussion

 * Please, do not add any other vote option. Three is more than we need already.  Mauser  Comlink 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)