Forum:Unauthorized book resources, particularly "Delta Quadrant"

Currently, the page at seems quite unclear about unauthorized book resources, speaking exclusively about "fan" resources. I've been wondering if the reference book Delta Quadrant would be a permissable resource of info (in such a way as it is already used in the article ). Although the book itself is an unauthorized publication, its writer, David McIntee, has since become a fully-fledged author of Trek fiction (having written, for example, his forthcoming novel Indistinguishable from Magic). One particular place this could be useful as a resource is in the article, where a currently uncited note states that the episode is a bottle show (which it most clearly is!) In Delta Quadrant, McIntee refers to that specific episode as a bottle show. If the book is considered as an acceptable resource for such bg info, we can add the needed citation. Otherwise, we'll probably have to remove the note entirely! Please let me know. --Defiant 11:11, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is this - we don't accept unauthorized stuff for in-universe facts or apocrypha, as that's fanon. But an unauthorized account to obtain real world facts about the making of the show is fine (and often good to get a differing view). Delta Quadrant seems as valid as Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages (pretty much the same thing) or magazines unaffiliated with Star Trek (like Cinefantastique). So long as it's a reputable source it's no problem. This is encyclopedic.


 * If the policy needs updating, I would support this. I think at the moment, one could argue such works come under number 4, point 2. But that section of the policy as a whole seems to read that it's an exhaustive list for background information, which it is not. – Cleanse ( talk 11:30, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I personally think we should create an exhaustive list, the like of which you suggest. It would save users having to figuratively search around for a light switch in the dark! --Defiant 11:35, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a good starting point (at the very least) is to check whether there are any unacceptable works listed on the reference works page; if not, then we can surely just link to it and say something along the lines of "these are all usable". --Defiant 11:46, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than having users refer to an approved list of sources for background information, the policy should make users ask "Is this source reliable for finding out what happened behind the scenes on Star Trek?" (given our subject matter isn't generally contentious, this isn't a big hurdle to get over). If it is, then it's a valid background source.


 * Keeping track of the specific websites, blogs, and reference books that we would accept would be futile IMO; there's always new sources and new forms of sources in which production staff communicate to fans - AOL chat archives, blogs, message board posts, podcasts etc. You can see how the list you linked is out of date, for example. I don't think we want to get overly technical with this when it could prevent valid information getting through.– Cleanse ( talk 12:01, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Cleanse here. Keeping a list of "acceptable works" is just too tiring, and we'd spend more time on keeping that up to date. And yes, the "unauthorized resources" does refer to in-universe stuff. Perhaps that could be made clearer, and (in theory) should cover the situation encountered above. -- sulfur 12:24, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Okay; point taken about the list! :) As far as Delta Quadrant is concerned, there's several notes in it that have discrepancies with other sources. One example is the Borg cube model in the episode . The book claims that the model was "the new one built for Star Trek: First Contact", yet several sources I have encountered (such as an online source quoted in the article, as well as the audio commentary for ) clearly suggest that Voyager used its own Borg cube CGI model (mostly, at least). Furthermore, much of the book seems to have been derived from merely watching the episodes (as any of us could do!) and uses misquoted quotes from production personnel (i.e., most of the "quotes" in that book I've found to be almost exactly what another source says, only worded a bit differently). Do these facts, for example, make Delta Quadrant unreliable to the point of being unusable? --Defiant 12:28, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible, of course, that the same actor (for an example) talked about the same issues, wording the content of what he was saying in a different manner (as celebrities and the like are inclined to do, especially considering the tendency that they'll have numerous interviews with the same/similar questions). This problem could be explained away that way, but there's still the central problem: the frequency of discrepancies between what the book states and what other sources state. Should we make a note of each discrepancy, on a case-by-case basis, or just entirely disregard the book as a valid resource? --Defiant 12:36, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know? --Defiant 01:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book, so it's really up to your judgement as to its reliability. If multiple other sources contradict information it contains, don't use that piece of information.


 * If it's backing up something simple like "X is a bottle show" (and X clearly is), then I don't see the harm in using it. At worst, you could write something like "According to Delta Quadrant, Y is a bottle show".


 * I'd tend to avoid listing discrepancies, unless it's a well-known and common source and this is a common mistake arising from that source (we have a few notes where the Star Trek Encyclopedia is wrong for example). But this should probably be kept to a minimum in the articles themselves. Alternatively, it is appropriate to list where sources are in disagreement and the 'true' answer is somewhat unclear. The mistakes you list in Delta Quadrant probably aren't worth listing everywhere from the sound of it.


 * Likewise, deeming certain sources "invalid" seems unnecessary. This seems like looking for a solution where there isn't a problem - the only dodgy sources we get on MA are the dreaded "some fans" or "I think I remember reading this somewhere so I'll post it without a citation" (I'm looking at you, TOS background information). – Cleanse ( talk 02:04, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for explaining what you should think I do. --Defiant 08:51, October 13, 2010 (UTC)