Talk:Q Continuum characters

Article's existence?
Why is this here? Shouldn't all this information be posted at Star Trek: The Next Generation - Q Continuum or wherever? --From Andoria with Love 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles about novel series that have lots of character data have started to branch off into separate pages like Vanguard characters or New Frontier characters. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. That's good enough for me, then. Thanks for setting me straight. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Realworld?
Kennelly just added a realworld template to this article, suggesting that this is real world information. If that's the case, then should we not be adding realworld tags to all of the novel related character pages and so forth? Last I checked, the realworld tag wasn't for that. I'm not convinced that it should be used this way. These may be non-canon, but they're still in-universe context. And they are marked pretty damned clearly that they are non-canon at the top. Thoughts? -- Sulfur 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's not the case till now, it should be I think. I was under the impression that the realworld tag was for all articles not dealing with something canon. Quote from our policy "The only exceptions to this rule are articles about the Star Trek franchise and production (eg. articles on books, comics, actors, staff, etc.), which naturally are not part of the Star Trek universe." This seems to tell me, that it's a mistake all those comic and novel-related pages do NOT have this tag. Kennelly 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sulfur. These are non-canon, but still in-universe. If the books themselves don't have a realworld template, these shouldn't either, because they're just extensions of the novel articles when there are characters that are carried over from novel to novel. The realworld tag was not created for anything non-canon, it was created for articles like actors, production companies, games, and any other article that's not in-universe. The novels, while non-canon, are still in universe, just as the episodes are. -- Renegade54 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The realworld tag was intended to separate production stuff from in-universe stuff (canon or otherwise). Production stuff would entail reference books, actors, writers, and that kind of thing. In-universe stuff is... well... the rest really. If we plan on using the realworld tag to indicate non-canon things, then we should really consider creating another tag to cover that, especially as the 'realworld' one really does not give that impression whatsoever. -- Sulfur 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the current policy disagrees with you. Again, "...articles on books, comics, actors, staff, etc., which naturally are not part of the Star Trek universe." I don't see any other way to read this than that articles on novels+comics (and its subsequent subpages) are not in-universe. Kennelly 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... pretty obviously. The book is a realworld object, but the characters within are in-universe characters. No? Again, the realworld tag was never intended to separate canon from non-canon. Ever. Never. Not at all. Its original intention was to separate actors from characters. Not non-canon items from canon items. -- Sulfur 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The line you're quoting is on POV, not on where and when to use the realworld tag. "Memory Alpha's point of view (POV) is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe. The only exceptions to this rule are articles about the Star Trek franchise and production (eg. articles on books, comics, actors, staff, etc.), which naturally are not part of the Star Trek universe." This is meant to say that when you're writing about a book, comic, etc. (or even an episode) as far as describing it (as in a review), then the POV is not in-universe (therefor it's realworld). We've had this same discussion in the past about episodes, since from one standpoint they're realworld (they're a TV show, or a movie, with a director, a writer, a script, and lots of other realworld attributes) but the story that is told is in-universe. The novels, comics, etc. are the same in that respect. We decided that despite the dual nature of episodes, they would still be considered in-universe from a POV standpoint and not have a realworld tag. -- Renegade54 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "we" ever decided this, the discussions about this like here seem to be unfinished to me. Still, the line quoted above by me explicitly states that "novels,comic etc." are not part of the Star Trek universe and as the realworld tag is pointing out to the POV policy, it's exactly about when and where to use the realworld tag. I just don't see, how a "character inside the Star Trek Universe" can write an article about a novel. Of course he can't. And that's exactly why it should get the realworld template just like a character inside the universe can't write an article about production staff. Episodes/movies might be a different thing, because they form the basis for the in-universe articles allowed under our canon policy.Kennelly 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still up in the air as to what POV those pages should be listed as. It's not up in the air as to what "real world" actually means. A page about in-universe characters in a novel may be non-canon, but that doesn't mean that it is "realworld". It only means that it isn't canon. There's a big difference. -- Sulfur 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I still strongly disagree with this. Nevertheless, I proposed a policy change here here to clarify it once and for all. I suggest we take our discussion there (and hopefully more than the three of us). Kennelly 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, there's also a related discussion on the Template talk:Realworld page. -- Renegade54 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't this page should be merged with Star Trek: The Next Generation - Q Continuum? This kind of information is only supposed to be on novel pages. If it is kept seperate, then it is an extension of the novel page, and should have realworld, as it is an article about characters from a novel series, definitely production POV. In-universe, they would be people, not characters. They would be grouped by something like species or ship, not having appeared in the same book. --Bp 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because pages like these are intended for covering characters that appear in multiple articles. Now, not having read the Q books, I couldn't tell you if that's the case on this page. Now, the thing is... if this page gets merged and thus dealt with that way... other pages will still have issues. Such as the New Frontier characters page. So, it's still going to be a problem. And yes, they may be grouped awkwardly, but just try to group them otherwise. :)

See, this opens up a totally new and fun can of worms to deal with. Isn't this fun!? So, how're we going to sort this all out? By putting realworld tags on articles that aren't realworld? -- Sulfur 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah. My head hurts now. I'm gonna go play Asheron's Call and forget about this for a while! -- Renegade54 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography of 0
Since 0 is a non canon character, its full bio belongs at Memory Beta (read the page header!). I've copied that section of the article, verbatim, over to Memory Beta, and left a stub and pointer on this page. Dkendr (talk) 16:31, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a canon page; note the "real world" template at the top. The first line also states that it lists "non-canon" characters. I'm also not sure if MB's license allows copying from here to there.   That said, it probably doesn't need to be as long as it is now, but it doesn't need to be totally removed. 31dot (talk) 16:34, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * MB's license doesn't allow direct copying. Same as MA's. Please do not copy. Ever. -- sulfur (talk) 16:37, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article for this character already existed at and thus copying it directly over was not required. Now, should this be shortened and a link over to MB be added? Certainly. -- sulfur (talk) 16:46, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

All of this is ridiculous. Read the head of the page. Dkendr (talk) 21:36, November 16, 2012 (UTC) 'Nuff said.
 * You mean the bit that says:
 * This is a list of non-canon characters
 * or:
 * This article lists non-canon information.
 * I don't quite see what you're getting at here. -- sulfur (talk) 23:39, November 16, 2012 (UTC)