Talk:Star Trek Expanded Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Clarification 2 VfD 3 Last Full Measure 4 Meaning

[edit] Clarification

I'm not clear on what "Star Trek Expanded Universe" is. I've never heard the term used in fandom. A google search turns up that it's the name of one of the Star Trek roleplaying game rulebooks, but otherwise only shows generic references to "the Star Trek expanded universe," not to the term as a proper noun.

You edited Star Trek to say that books, comics, video games, and other non-canon Trek material "is considered an integral part of the Star Trek Expanded Universe" - is there more to the STEU than this? And from the article you created, it's not clear whether STEU is a specific commercial series of books, or whether it's supposed to refer generally to any non-canon Star Trek material. It would help immensely if you'd clear this up; is "Star Trek Expanded Universe" a proper noun or a generic term? If the latter, then you may want to rename this article to "Star Trek expanded universe" or something more descriptive such as "Non-canon Star Trek storylines".

- Brian Kendig 21:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

D.C. Fontana used the term in the 1960s to describe Leonard McCoy's backstory. I thought it would be a good starter article to fill in a lot of the backstory info on the major characters. I added it as a subsection of the Others section in Star Trek instead of renaming the entire section. My opinion is it should be a proper noun, much like the Star Wars Expanded Universe.

-Husnock 27 Oct 2004.

It says in the article, Chekov "appeared apparently as a retired Commander in Star Trek: Generations, but later novels and fan sources from Star Trek: The Next Generation indicate that he eventually became an Admiral." What episode of STG did Chekov appear in? Bill shannon 2001 02:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

This article was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek Expanded Universe for a record. Postdlf 05:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Full Measure

An anonymous editor has added a reference to the novel "Last Full Measure" revealing that Trip survived TATV. This is most likely bogus as I cannot find anything to support it. Can anyone who has read the book substantiate it? 23skidoo 22:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning

surely, if this term means anything it means "all the books and comics and games and stuff", by analogy to the star wars usage. and thus what is at Star Trek, other storylines should be here instead (or rather, they should both go to Star Trek spin-off fiction. Morwen - Talk 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice my redirect/merge was reverted. It is true, that not very much was merged. This is because I examined the article, and found it very hard to salvage any usable content from it. I did use the section about the animated series, which I considered to be the only usable content. The article is structured not as an article about the "Star Trek Expanded Universe", whatever that is supposed to be, but instead as a list of random story elements that appear frequently in spin-off fiction. As such it has the wrong name. If this material has to remain in this format, Star Trek Expanded Universe is not the right place.

Furthermore, it is nearly entirely unreferenced. I am dubious as to the veracity of the information here. Some of it was seems to be utter nonsense (such as Fontanta inventing the term in 1966, before the show had been cancelled, even! and also before the Way to Eden had been made). The notion of "canon" didn't really achieve prominence in Star Trek fandom until Richard Arnold started sending memoes around in the 1980s. We could make an excellent encyclopedic article or section at Star Trek spin-off fiction about Ford's Klingons and how they became obselete, and the usage of unfilmed but planned elements (such as McCoy's backstory and Phase II), about the Arnold/Roddenberry edict that TAS could not be referenced in the comics and books, that sort of thing. But this isn't it. Morwen - Talk 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think "not very much was merged" is an understatement. The article was blanked and redirected with *none* of the material merged. It could use a cleanup/merger, but not a blanking. The Klingon and Romulan stuff is from a great deal of sources and Checkov/McCoy backstories are also well documented. The name of the article is from a direct quote from D.C. Fontana when she was asked about McCoy's daughter. It is referenced in either a magazine or a book, I will have to look when I sm home with my sources again. -Husnock 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are re-adding very dubious material which I have explained why it is nonsense. Please check your dates. Does it really make sense to have this being said in 1966? Not at all. Saying "ah, but I don't have my books with me at the moment" is not an excuse for adding misinformation. Challenged information should stay out until it is sourced properly. If you can source it properly, or if I can find it in my many Star Trek reference books (which I have checked and thus far can't), I will put it back in myself, with appropriate weight. Morwen - Talk 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I never used the term "ah, I dont have my books with me" and I'm certianly not making excuses. I am a member of the United States military deployed to the Persian Gulf. Most of my Star Trek material is home with my family. As far as the Fontana thing, I was at a Star trek convention in July of 1994 where she very clearly used this term and stated it was first used by her in 1966 during the original series to describe McCoy's daughter who never appeared in the series, but was considered "real" as far as storylines were concerned and by the show's writers. The interview itself could be used as a source. -Husnock 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this interview been published anywhere? I know you are aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it confuses me why you are using your recollections as a source. Regardless of whether you remember correctly or not, or whether Fontana was in error, this is not verifiable information. Morwen - Talk 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rephrased the statement to make it less strong, and have added a {{fact}} tag to it for the moment. I've also asked Trekbbs.com if they have any leads on the matter, since my searches have come up blank. Morwen - Talk 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, trekbbs.com people don't have any leads, and generally their consensus seems to be that "Star Trek Expanded Universe" is anyway not a very useful term due to the inconsistencies between the novels (indeed, having inconsistencies between novels was official policy at one point!) How much searching do I need to do to? It's rather hard to prove a negative unfortunately Morwen - Talk 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thread is here if anyone wants to read it. My conclusions are

• I asked if anyone had any references to this term, and suchforth
• Keith R.A. DeCandido said the term "does not really apply" and noted that Fontana was not with the Star Trek office anymore
• someone claimed that the novel continuity constitutes an Expanded Universe
• Christopher L. Bennett then said that the term is "a misleading label and should not be used"
• the term was then mocked
• The person who operates this website noted that you can't hear capital letters, in any case, and that he had conversations with Fontana as well, and did not recall her use the term. it is noted "the term seems borrowed" from Star Wars
• i did some research on Usenet, and discovered EXACTLY ONE hit for "Star Trek Expanded Universe"
• Steve Roby, who operates a very comprehensive website about Star Trek books, looked at the page, saying "

What a remarkably wrongheaded wiki page. And in so many different ways, too."

Morwen - Talk 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Noone is saying that this article could not use a cleanup and more sources. But, it has survived an AfD and blanking it and turning it into a redirect page is not the way too go. As far as this Fontana thing, what can I say. I was standing six feet from her when she said "In the Star Trek Expanded Universe, mcCoy has a daughter". So, there you go. When I get home in a few months I'll dig up the exact name of the convention and the date she was there. Unit then "fact" is fine. Let us let this go now, and move on. More sources and cleanup roger with confirmation of the Fontana statement. I got it. -Husnock 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I think this is unsalvageable as an independent article. It seems to have no clear purpose. Your memory is not a verifiable source, one of the editors at Pocket Books has mocked the idea of a "Star Trek Expanded Universe", and an expert in Star Trek books has criticised this article. Now, it's certainly graspsing at something we can treat encyclopedically, which is the 1970s/1980s attempt at creating a kind of consistent backstory and futurestory for characters in TAS, the novels and comic books, which Richard Arnold killed off in 1987. Some elements of it can be merged into the Star Trek spin-off fiction#Continuity, probably. But I don't see the point of this as a standalone article. Have you actually seen what we've got at Star Trek spin-off fiction now? Morwen - Talk 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  To turn the tables here, what is your source for saying that "an expert in Star Trek Books has criticised this article?" Who is this expert? How can one contact him/her? What are this person's credentials for being declared an expert in Star trek books. You have provided no source information for this statement and, by your own admission, such a statement must be disregarded since it is not verifiable. -Husnock 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  I provided you to the link to the discussion in question, and to the website that the chap operates. It is an extensive and well-researched website about Star Trek books. He was awarded a psiphi.org award. He is acknowledged in the introduction of the book "Voyages of the Imagination" by Jeff Ayers, published by Pocket Books, which is a book about all the star trek books. Insofar as Star Trek books have experts, he appears to be one. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  I mean, of the things here, the Star Trek spin-off fiction did already make mention of the second five-year voyage, DS9 relaunch, Shatnerverse, ENT relaunch. I'd added some sentences briefly covering briefly the Joanna, Chekov, Trip-Aint-Dead stuff, along with the Klingon Society (and indeed I added Rihannsu, poppings up of the old gang in the 2370s). How does that look now? The thing is, there are so many books that cover various random backstories now, that picking out, say, Imzadi, seems rather arbritrary. Burning Dreams is a particularly good example that's been released, as it covers Pike's entire life story, but I wouldn't think it warrants an entire paragraph on a page such as this one. There are just so much of them! Morwen - Talk 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's let this go for now, its becoming very tiresome. The article survivied an AfD and was then blanked and redirected. That is clearly against what the AfD indicated should happen to this article. More sources are fine, better citiations is fine, merging would be fine. Tim to move on, this has been beat to death. Thanks. -Husnock 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to do a merge! At least, a merge of spirit. However, when you are merging two articles with radically different writing styles, this doesn't necessarily involve copying and pasting large amounts of texts. As far as I am concerned, the essential elements of this article are now covered at Star Trek spin-off fiction and we can do the redirect because I have done a merge. If there are specific issues you think Star Trek spin-off fiction is not covering in sufficient depth, or ought to be mentioning, then I can gladly do that. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)