User:TribbleFurSuit/Redaction of Talk:Star Trek (film)

Original (with spoilers) and live discussions at Talk:Star Trek(film)

POV treatment on MA
So has anyone read this interview?

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ Appparently this trek occurs in a kind of parallel universe, which gives ******** an alternate history, as well as other changes to the universe. 66.8.254.133 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline, but the changes in this new timeline does not effect the old timeline (as screwed up as it already is). EDIT: By the way, that's not to say that certain things which happen in the new timeline aren't the same things that happened in the old timeline. Only those events directly affected by ******** at the beginning of the movie will be changed. --From Andoria with Love 12:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how we will deal with this alternate timeline aspect of the movie when creating in-universe articles, especially since its possible this alternate timeline will be the one most depicted on screen for some time to come.--31dot 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: we separate the events "Timeline A" from those of "Timeline B". Everything from ******** on and ******** – in other words, everything in the new movie – takes place in the newly-formed "Timeline B;" everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films take place in "Timeline A." Some things from the new movie – like the ******** and ******** – can be grouped in "Timeline A," as well, since "Timeline B" won't be created until ******** . We should also keep in mind that ********, as well as ******** , also originated from "Timeline A." --From Andoria with Love 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything should be separated, and I don't think any specific timelines should be given names or special treatment. There have already been so many different changes to the "main" timeline, and so many different "alternate" timelines whose events never impacted the MA POV, that it's hard to justify singling out one timeline for this treatment. We say, both in-universe and in realworld backgrounders, "in an alternate timeline, thisorthat happened", and cite the source. MA's POV must be considered: Our in-universe POV permits recording events form alternate timelines. "Everything from TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films" does not take place in some hypothetical "Timeline A", because there are things that take place in TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and the first ten films which are alternate timelines but still knowable in-universe by the idealized in-universe MA archivists. If we were to decide that in-universe future lookeruppers from some specific timeline (like, let's say, the "preferred" or "standard" one) couldn't actually have knowledge of such alternate events, then we would have a lot more to fix than film 11, and we would just as well get started on that right now instead of deciding what to do once film 11 will open. I say: Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline or unknowable event, for example the one in which chronexaline is used by Janeway in 2404, or the one in which the Battle of Procyon V takes place, or the one with Na'kuhl Nazis. MA's in-universe POV currently takes for granted that future historians or researchers will be able to access information about alternate timelines (to say nothing of other ostensibly unknowable events), and our POV also has a preferred timeline that is considered "not alternate". Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline and it also will not require any change to the status quo that has suited us for years. --TribbleFurSuit 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is this new alternate timeline is going to become the timeline of all things Star Trek for the foreseeable future. As such, it must be treated the same way which the canon of the old timeline is treated, but, because it is not the same timeline, it must be separated. There is actually no real choice there; the writers of the new film made that decision for us, as you can read in the interview linked above. The new film will not be set in the same timeline as the other Star Trek movies and TV shows; the writers have already confirmed that. Therefore, treating the new alternate timeline as "not alternate" is not an option, since it was deliberately created by the writers as an alternate timeline. Currently, we write alternate timeline information in italics to note that this timeline is different from the original timeline. We will not be able to do that with the information from this new movie and any subsequent movies set in this new universe, because it will be the new universe of Star Trek. So, there really isn't an option as to if we separate the info; the only options we have are how we choose to separate it and what we choose to separate. Simply keeping the events seen in the new movie apart from the events in other movies and shows seems the easiest, less chaotic way to do things. It will just require a new section on certain pages, with one section for "Timeline A" and another for "Timeline B", or however we choose to label them (assuming the writers give us that option). I really don't think this will be that bad, though; all it will mean is two separate sections in certain articles, one for "timeline A" and another for "timeline B." --From Andoria with Love 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did read everything. Now: I didn't say "treat the new timeline as not alternate", I said "Treat this no differently from any other alternate timeline" - that is to say, do treat the new timeline as an alternate one, but not any differently from how we've treated other alternate timelines. In order to understand why I said "Film 11 will not impact the preferred timeline", you should know what it is that I mean by "preferred timeline". It's the one which (A) contains the latest known canon non-alternate events (all of the self-consistent, non-alternate 24th-32nd century stuff so far) and which (B) contains the greatest bulk of the Star Trek corpus. Since there is a single timeline which is "latest and greatest", and which will continue to be until later and greater events in the Film 11 timeline are produced (>700 episodes and >10 movies), then what we'll see in Film 11 will be just another alternate timeline which never changed the events of all the rest of canon. From the POV of that in-universe Memory Alpha archivist of the >32nd Century which I talked about, that person will have experienced the results of the main timeline yet will have access to info about alternate timelines. So, again, this film doesn't need to be treated any differently from other alternate timelines. I suppose that if more works are produced taking place in the ******** timeline, then we could have a name for it, the same way that the "anti-time future" is an alternate timeline that we have a specific label for. But to elevate the " ******** timeline" to equal prominence with the entire rest of the main canon timeline, and to diminish the entire rest of the main canon timeline to the importance of the timeline of <1 film, to me isn't necessary or desirable. What you said about the choice the writers have made for us could be equally applied to the writers of all the other alternate-timeline events. The idea that "...and they might write another one!!!!" doesn't outweigh the idea that MA's in-universe, far-future, omniscient perspective still exists in one timeline (let's just say - the main one), not many timelines. The idea that the exact same MA with the exact same contents will exist in all possible universes is cuckoo. This is why I feel we have to pick one main timeline and treat all alternates the same, and that the timeline we should pick as "not alternate" is the one we already have, before Film 11 opens. --TribbleFurSuit 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would sort of contradict the unwritten policy that what ever is the latest addition to canon should be most preferred and prominently featured thing in MA, if most STXI related articles begin with "In the alternate timeline caused by ******** ..." But it would be the easiest solution, even if it is something of a spit in the face to the creators of the new film who have spent so much time and effort to reinvent and reimagine trek. ;-) --Pseudohuman 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not a parallel universe, but an alternate timeline"

Actually he uses both terms, parallel universe, and alternate imeline to mean the same thing. Read the full interview. I don't know they kinda do have the same meaning, or similar meanings, or are least related. While you can't always accept wikipedia's definitions, it states; In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternative timelines", etc. Thus Orci is not the only one that uses the terms parallel and alternative timeline to mean the same thing. This is apparently a normal phenomena in scifi stories and apparently quantum theory. While I respect your opinion that perhaps you view alternate timelines and parallel universes as seperate topics, it would seem many sci-fi writers wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Regardless, it doesn't matter what other scifi writers believe, we have evidence of Orci himself using the terms as synonyms, which is all that really matters 66.8.254.133 22:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points all around. All this being the case, we should probably treat the new movie not as alternate timeline information but as parallel universe information, as we do with the mirror universe stuff. One thing we can't do is intersperse pages with italicized "In an alternate timeline in which ******** ..." ******** 's history will be the most impacted and changed by this movie and I just don't think having a bunch of "In an alternate timeline" lines sprinkled throughout ******** article would be a good idea. I therefore suggest we treat the movie the way the writers are treating it: as taking place in a separate universe. With that in mind, we should handle info from the new movie similarly to the way we handle info from the mirror universe episodes of Star Trek. This means we should either A.) do as I suggested above, separating information into different sections; or B.) creating new pages for the alternate ********, the alternate ******** , the alternate ******** , the alternate ******** history, the alternate ******** , etc. I'm not sure I like the latter idea. For one thing, what we name the pages? For another, it would be a bit too chaotic. Adding a separate section to pages seems to be the easiest way to go. If you guys have any other suggestions, please add it below. For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we? :-D I'm also not saying we should treat the new timeline as prominent over the old one, but I do think we should treat them equally. Afterall, this will be, in all likelihood, the new canon timeline for a long time to come. In any case, the new timeline info will be added after the "main" timeline events, so in a sense, the old timeline is taking prominence. You see? --From Andoria with Love 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, they're the same thing, why not. It doesn't actually matter whether it's a parallel universe or an alternate timeline. I still maintain that the in-universe Memory Alpha archive which our in-universe future audience would use can't exist in many universes/timelines/whatever in a single state, and that the universe/timeline/whatever we're writing it for should be the one which had the latest canon events and the greatest number of them in canon. While I understand the concept of "many worlds" and "multiverse", nobody lives there - everybody lives in one of the many universes. Over time they enter different ones, but no single instance of any person experiences the multiple universes/timelines/whatever. While MA so far has assumed that, in the universe in which this copy of Memory Alpha will exist, people can have knowledge of alternate universes/timelines/whatever, still none of them lives in a single universe/timeline/whatever with multiple realities. The archive can't be in a universe in which both timelines are valid, so I maintain that we have to choose the POV of one universe/timeline/whatever, and all the rest are alternates from that POV. It would be nonsensical to have two non-alternate but mutually contradictory sets of facts in any single universe, so, unless we'll make a second MA which lives in a second universe/timeline/whatever, which is also laughable, then we pick one POV.
 * Now, I don't have any idea where this unwritten rule you're talking about, Pseudohuman, came from. In-universe retcons have occurred, but that is different from creating alternate realities. Retcons still take place in the main/preferred/latestgreatestcanon universe/timeline/whatever, but that's totally different from creating alternate ones. At any rate, with retcons or any other kind of story where past canon is further illuminated by new canon, then, of course we'll take the latest content produced as the real story. You see how the latest production is different from the latest events in-universe? OK, there can not be two canons. There can be only one. All that's left is to pick: will it be from the POV of Film 11, or that of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and 10 other movies? --TribbleFurSuit 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally: regarding"For the record, TribbleFurSuit, there's no written policy saying our POV exists only or primarily in one timeline or universe. If that were true, well, then, we wouldn't have any info on the alternate timelines or the mirror universe, would we?" OK, see MA:POV: "Memory Alpha's primary point of view is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe – an archivist at Memory Alpha, the Federation library planet. Star Trek universe articles should be written as if the described person, object, or event actually existed or occurred, exactly like in a normal encyclopedia, but with an omniscient writer. " Omniscient means what I've been saying above: These archivists can (somehow) know about other realities, but the various alternate realities are separate realities. The Battle of Procyon V did not take place in the main/preferred POV, even if some in-universe library has information about it, presented as an alternative that was learned about in some fashion or another. Maybe they'll use a version of Daniels' temporal observatory. Nevertheless, even Daniels proves that we can't say, from any in-universe POV, that "these two mutually exclusive contradictory events both took place in our universe". One of them has to be an alternate. Future Daniels' memory of what happened in his universe always was changing, because what happened in his universe was changing, or, to use the multiverse metaphor, they were different Daniels's from different universes. --TribbleFurSuit 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it depends on what the intentions of the producers are no matter what the technobabble behind it is. Do they want to reimagine Trek for future fans with this film, or do they just want to add another yesterday's enterprise to the mix. If fans who come aboard trek with this new film are intended to treat all the events, tech, ships and such as the "new true canon" that the franchise will follow from now on, we should take the film-11 pov as the "main timeline" in MA too. I suspect the end of this film will be such that all the TOS-onwards adventures take place with only some superficial changes, the shape of connies, etc. but it's too early to tell. :) --Pseudohuman 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TribleFurSuit: You're forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe. We treat mirror universe information the same way we treat "prime" universe info: we have individual articles for elements in the mirror universe, just as we have individual articles for elements in the "prime" universe. Some mirror universe info is even located on pages with "prime" universe info. In addition, you're assuming that this new film won't somewhat alter our POV policy to account for this "new" universe.


 * TFS, if I understand you correctly, you want to treat the new movie as we treat all alternate timeline info, meaning separating it from "norman" timeline information using italics. I am not saying that is absolutely not the way to go; in fact, we can try it and it may work out fine. But, since this movie also takes place in a parallel universe, why can't we treat info from the new movie the way we treat info from the mirror universe episodes? Yes, this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?


 * By comparison, the Battlestar wiki operates in a very similar way as I'm suggesting. For example, they have Cylon split up into three articles based on the series in which they appeared, since each series was a different universe. Of course, that wiki does not share our "in-universe" POV, which brings me back to my point about our current policy: we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes, as well. As ludicrous as this may sound, we are already doing this with the mirror universe information; we just haven't stated it in the policy yet.


 * All of the mirror universe episodes has at least one element from our universe visiting the mirror timeline, whether it be one or more characters (Benjamin Sisko, James T. Kirk) or a starship (USS Defiant (NCC-1764)). This new parallel universe will be no different: it will have ******** from our universe, a group of ******** from our universe, and at least two ******** from our universe, all visiting this new alternate universe. In addition, this new universe will be continuing as the mirror universe has been. So, I ask again, why not treat info from the new movie as we would info from the mirror universe?


 * Pseudohuman: This new film is intended to be the "new" canon which the franchise will follow from now on, assuming the film is successful. (As I said before, we don't have to worry about implementing anything just yet, but it's probably a good idea to talk about it ahead of time, which we are doing.) This is why just treating it as any other alternate timeline doesn't really sit well with me. However, if the community wants to go that route, then I will agree. TribbleFurSuit is right that we've been treating alternate timelines a certain way and I do see his point, but this movie is not just another alternate timeline: it is an all new universe, one in which the producers intend on staying for quite a while. --From Andoria with Love 09:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're getting somewhere. Yes, let's treat this more like the Mirror Universe. I'm not at all "forgetting that MA already "lives" in more than one universe, namely the "prime" universe and the mirror universe." But this is really not correct: MA doesn't live in the Mirror Universe, it lives in the regular one. Archivists, in this universe, have knowledge of at least some aspects of the Mirror Universe and that knowledge is represented in the archive as originating from the other universe.


 * "this would most likely mean information from the movie being separated into its own section – is that really a problem?" No, no, of course not. But the idea of "Timeline A and Timeline B" is unpalatable. This universe isn't Universe A, and the Mirror Universe isn't Universe B, they're this universe and some other universe. Also, alternate content is not always italicized or shuffled off to an appendix. (Frankly, I don't think it should be, either: Italics are normally used for non-canon or occasionally real-life info. But alternate reality info still is canon. Maybe we currently have a style problem?) We have entire in-universe articles about events and people from alternate realities, as well as other articles which discuss alternate timeline events in main-style text.


 * The idea of adjusting our POV is tricky. If it's done, there will be a Xload of cleanup to do. I am really not sure it's necessary: while you predict that "we may need to adjust it to say that we can see into other universes", I say that we already can see into alternate timelines/parallel universes, at least to the extent necessary to represent all of canon. For events in our universe, we possess the omniscience that MA:POV indicates, and for other universes/timelines, we don't, but we do indeed still know some things (somehow).


 * Let me point out one little difference between the Mirror Universe stuff vs. the alternate timeline stuff. The reason we have 2 articles for main and Mirror characters is that they really are different characters - different beings. But if one already-living character ********, is it 2 characters? I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it's not. We've never done that before with alternate timeline characters. Tasha Yar still only has 1 page.


 * So the Mirror Universe model might turn out to be a pretty good one, especially if we can come up with a catchy, concise, meaningful name for the ******** timeline. Or, if separate articles for one character aren't palatable to everybody, then a new standardized " ******** " subsection would be better than "sprinkling throughout articles" this info. Again, see Yar's page. It contains info from multiple ones, but a standard one for the ******** timeline should work for a lot of pages. Or a separate " ******** Timeline" article, why not.


 * All right: hopefully some ideas are starting to percolate. My main objection was to the idea of treating the universe we've had all along, and will have until next May, as a stepchild with no greater import than the new timeline. It's the main timeline/universe. Its history stretches to the 32nd century. Some timeline that is portrayed in one production and essentially ends in the 2250's should not displace the primacy of the universe that rest of canon represents. In. my. opinion. --TribbleFurSuit 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

TribbleFurSuit, good thoughts all around, and I agree with you. However for others who have used the term, "new" canon, ugh, that doesn't sit well with me... That kind of wording sounds too close to "replacing", the old. The thought that there may not be a continuation to the old canon, and that it could be "replaced" in a way, is disheartening to me... Personally I hope this new movie is just a one off event. Though rumors from AICN are that ********, that wouldn't happen in the "main" universe, like perhaps important planets or races being wiped out. If true, I suppose that might be interesting, but done only in moderation. I really don't want them to do that too often, and that type of thing might make for interesting direct to video releases rather than theatrical. I really want them to go back to the universe we know and love, and have them fill in more gaps. Imo, future theatrical movies should go back on track to the main timeline. Also speaking of direct to video releases, and mini-series; it would be nice if paramount used that format to say bring back characters from previous shows to tell new stories in the original universe. I mean why not give us the Romulan war with the Enterprise cast, as a mini series? There is still plenty they could do with the original universe without having to resort to creating full length series, or "replacing" the original universe with a new one.66.8.254.133 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about details from the new universe like the ******** and the ******** which are part of the Prime canon (I take this name from merchandise for ******** in the new film). – Alientraveller 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tribblefursuit: Fair enough. :) We will have to come to some decision on what to call sections for the new timeline, though. " ********  timeline" doesn't really work, especially since the  ********  is in the prime timeline, as well. Remember, the movie starts in the prime timeline but deviates when ******** . Maybe something like "alternate prime timeline," since this is basically the creation of a new prime timeline. Actually, I don't think I like that name, either, lol!


 * 66.8.254.133: It is not the writers' or the filmmakers' intention to "replace" the old timeline with this new one. The old timeline will still exist, but to open up new possibilities for story-telling, they have established a new timeline in which to tell their stories. Keep in mind that not everything will be different in this timeline, only some things, particularly things with ********.


 * Alientraveller: The existence of the ******** and its crew, as well as ********, will be included as part of the "prime timeline" canon. However, everything from ******** onward will take place in the "alternate prime timeline." (Still not sure I like that phrasing...) --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I predict that once we see the movie, some snappy name will suggest itself. Knowing what we know now, though, the best I can come up with are:
 * the "STXI" timeline (pronounced "sticksy")
 * the "Orci/Kurtzman" timeline
 * Though, we'll probably want an in-universe name:
 * the " ******** " timeline (since ******** )
 * the " ******** " timeline
 * the " ******** " timeline
 * --TribbleFurSuit 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... of those I like " ******** timeline" best, though I'm not too thrilled about that name, either. Also, ******** existed in the prime timeline, as well, so it may cause some confusion. An in-universe term is definitely what we're looking for, though; if we were to go by a production-POV term, we could just call it the "Abramsverse" and be done with it. :)


 * By the way, I just thought of something. Regarding a tweak to the policy, we could say we have the ability "visit" different timelines/universes, or maybe say that we made a leap from the "prime timeline" to the new timeline of the movie. Or something like that. Dunno, just spitting out ideas. Let me know what you think. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like I said, after we see the movie, some better in-universe name probably will suggest itself. Regarding MA:POV, maybe something that alludes to the temporal observatory could be stated, in order to justify the in-universe capability to see into alternate timelines and other unknowable things, like USS Voyager (mimetic) and Museum of Kyrian Heritage. So far, most of the alternate timeline/universe stuff is knowable in the main timeline just because people here witnessed them. But not all. Definitely a few alternate timelines plus a couple of other ostensibly unknowable events are already treated here as knowable by the >32nd century MA archivists. I like the idea of "seeing into" better than the idea of "making a leap" or "visiting". Though, the policy has suited everything we've done so far. I really don't know what should be changed. Maybe just some statement about what's the main universe and what's not. How about: "...but with an omniscient writer, who can see certain events from alternate timelines and parallel universes" --TribbleFurSuit 19:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Orci said there would be revelations in the film that are common ground to the old universe because they are not affected by the ******** . Would those details be noted in italics in the prime articles or be disregarded because one undone change to the timeline means everything is an alternate universe? – Alientraveller 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Without knowing what those details are, I think we'll just have to see. I'm inclined to say that, if we see something in the new timeline which may appear to be unaffected by ********, but we never actually saw it in the main timeline, then there's not any evidence that it did occur the same way in the main timeline, and so not to do what you say.


 * On the other hand, if Orci is talking about things that are revealed before the timeline forks, like let's say we learn that Amanda Grayson tried out a little Sapphism in college before meeting Sarek, then this fact wouldn't be an issue of the alternate timeline at all. It would belong to the main timeline before the split. So it would just be a regular canon detail in the Amanda Grayson article.


 * A third type of revelation might be: we see something that occurs after the timeline fork, it's something we already have seen in canon in the main timeline, and it appears to be something which couldn't possibly be affected by ******** . Like, maybe we find out that those five cadets still die attempting a Kolvoord Starburst at the Academy. OK, if that's all we learn, then there's no new information. But let's say we learn a new detail, like one of those cadets' names. Then will we include it in the main timeline, the new timeline, both, or what?


 * I think there will really only be a pretty small number of cases like this and the way we answer those questions in each case will depend on what we really see and hear onscreen. --TribbleFurSuit 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like "Abramsverse". :) I'd like the POV policy to change so that abramsverse is not called an alternative timeline in the articles and that there would be separate pages for all the abramsverse specific stuff that simply have a template thingy in the upper corner similar to the realworld template that says "This information is written from the Abramsverse point of view" it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO. But if you dont agree, then forget it. Just my opinion. =D --Pseudohuman 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's think about it a little: Does your way mean that there would be a separate  ******** (Abramsverse) article? If so, would that article include info about ******** from before the timeline split? And, would the regular  ********  article include new info from STXI about ******** before the timeline split? Just asking. Because, whether we were to call it the "Abramsverse" or not, the reality is that this stuff does intersect with the regular universe.
 * "Abramsverse" could become an anachronism as soon as somebody else directs STXIII or the like. Same goes for Orci/KurtzmanVerse or other realworld-POV names. This and other POV reasons stated previously are why I personally would like an in-universe name. I still don't care whether we call it an alternate timeline or a parallel universe.
 * And, I didn't get what this means: "it would be easier to just call this another parallel universe and put the stuff in subsections, but in this case it should get more from us IMO". What should get more what from us, now?
 * Thanks for the ideas, let's keep talking about them. --TribbleFurSuit 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Quantum universes as explained in have a shared history up to some point with another quantum universe and "abramsverse" would therefore begin from the temporal incursion event as it is an artificially forked out quantum universe. It would not have any history of its own beyond that as it is only a tangent-universe without its own past. So yes to the  ******** (Abramsverse) article, no to the shared history info bit, new pre-incursion info would belong to the  ********  article. Of course info can be referenced when it explains something in Abramsverse but it shouldn't be given redundantly when that is unnecessary. The "more" would be these own articles written from the abramsverse-pov with the little template up there at the top of the page, instead of the current treatment of alternative timelines. This was my suggestion, sorry for not being clear enough. In-universe name would be better. I understand the objection to my suggestion and why you think we should treat it as we treat other alternative timelines currently, as that would be easier, no need to repeat the position, this section is long enough as it is. =D --Pseudohuman 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents would be that Memory Alpha should be split in two, just as there is the "Memory Alpha" in timeline A, as another user put it, there probably would be a "Memory Alpha" in JJ Abrahams reimagined Trek universe
 * Besides, didn't I see a Mirror Universe Memory Alpha? http://memory-alpha.org/mu/wiki/Main_Page 204.209.209.129


 * There is indeed a Mirror Universe wiki. And there could indeed be an "Abramsverse" wiki. I'm pretty sure there will be, sooner or later. Neither of those have anything to do with the fact that this is the canon wiki, for all of canon. We have Mirror Universe material here, even though there's a separate wiki, and we will have ******** -timeline stuff here, even if there's a separate wiki. We're trying to manage this wiki, and STXI stuff is not going to be piped out of here to some other wiki and ignored here.


 * At any rate, the holding pattern that we've arrived at for now is to plan to treat this like we already treat the Mirror Universe here, and to pick a name for this new timeline/universe/whatever once we see the movie, because we don't have a good in-universe name yet and the movie probably will reveal something that makes good sense. I'm picturing naming it for whatever will be the specific novel timetravel technology ******** will use. I bet it will be something we've never heard of yet, so we could be calling it the " ******** Timeline" or something. --TribbleFurSuit 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)