Talk:Klingon Covert Operations Manual

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Revision as of 21:52, June 13, 2008

Fan material?

Firstly, this page says it's from 1989, not 1987. But besides that, as a non-licensed fan work, should we actually not have this article at all? --TribbleFurSuit 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of such articles on this site regarding reference manuals. As for this one, it is noteworthy because it mentions a rank which has appeared in Pocket Books novels as well as an insignia which is seen on screen later in "The Most Toys". Not to mention it introduces the ideas of the "human-fusions" which are directly spoken of in "The Final Reflection", "Rules of Engagement" as well as other novels. You might also be correct about the date of publication, I wrote that from memory. -FC 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Google seems to confirm 1989. --TribbleFurSuit 20:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is, in fact, a non-licensed work then no it does not belong. We have a pretty strict policy on Fan Materials. Other reference materials are written by people involved in the production of the show such as the TNG Manual. As for the "human-fusions" that was disproved in ENT as for the reason why klingons and humans looked alike. Novels aren't canon anyway. – Morder 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If people really feel that strongly about this, then it can be proposed for deletion and a vote by the MA community can determine it. My pre-planned response to such a vote can be found here. -FC 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for deletion here, but, lemme point out that your argument is way full of holes. The two works you referenced there aren't similar to this Klingon covert-ops one. They're both licensed by Paramount, this one was self-published by fans. Another point: You say this book is a source for the hybrids storyline, the Fleet Admiral rank, and Data's medal. But first, check your dates: Novels with hybrids came first. And second, apparently no Pocket Books do make reference to Flag Admiral, contrary to your statement above. The only thing that does reference Flag Admiral is another fan tech manual. I really don't see any evidence that this is "a core element of ST reference manual material", if by that you mean ref. material that creators use in new Paramount or Paramount-licensed projects. The medal/pin is an interesting tidbit and might be enough to justify keeping this, but I'm not convinced this book was a source for the medal/pin. --TribbleFurSuit 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Rules of Engagement" was published after this manual and there is a lengthy scene in the novel where human-fusions are discussed. The other novel I think you're right about and I just got confused. As far as "no pocket books make reference to flag admiral" I doubt anyone can say that with authority since there have been close to 150 such novels published in the past 20 years. I actually remember at least two where flag admiral is talked about in passing and I'm sure there are others. As far as the medal/pin being from this manual, I never said that, I merely stated that the same insignia from this manual appears on screen in a Star Trek episode. The history behind that though is that the pin was designed by "Hollywood Pins" who took it from the manual (I know because I knew people who worked there and they told me as such) and then the pin was used as a prop in Data's medal case by the Paramount Pictures wardrobe department. Thats just my own personal knowledge though so I cant put that in the article without a source. Last of all, I'm not exactly sure who published this manual but I don't think it can be said at this point that it was a self published work as there is no evidence one way or the other.

I'm obviously not going to say "Yeah, you're right, lets delete the article." I think instead of being so against it, people should work together to research it a little bit more and improve the article instead of trying to discredit it. -FC 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is an independent, official source stating that this book was the source of the pin design? I could see keeping this if that was the case, but if there is not such a source, I don't see how this is different than any other fan-produced material which is not appropriate for MA.--31dot 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what kind of source you would need. As stated above, I knew the people at Hollywood Pins who designed the same pin that appeared in "The Most Toys" and was told directly by them they had gotten the idea from the Covert Operations Manual. They actually designed a "Commodore" pin too, also based on one that appeared in the manual. I guess I could scan the page from the manual and the page from the Hollywood Pins catalog showing them as identical? Give me a few days to do some research. The article getting hit this hard just a few hours after creation seems to me to be a bit harsh. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCaptain (talk • contribs) .

Comparing this to other works

I created a separate section for this so it does not get entangled with the discussion up above. My question: Is this manual in any way different from The Worlds of the Federation, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, or Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual? None of those other manuals were published by persons connected with the Star Trek show. Rather, the first two by an author hired by Pocket Books and the third by an author contracted to FASA. There is also a fourth work called Starfleet Dynamics which was published for the 25th anniversary of Star Trek, I think by some people connected to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Should we create an article for that manual? Or would it receive a similar classification of fan work? I guess I am asking for an official Memory Alpha policy page which sets down the rules here. The conversation up above has gone too deeply into personal opinions I feel. -FC 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All of those works you linked were licensed Star Trek works at the time, whether through Pocket Books or FASA.– Cleanse 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So what is the determining factor for that and what policy page on this site should be referenced when writing articles like this? Policy rules on this site, after all, as we all know. -FC 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which policy page, you ask? THE policy page, say, bullet #3. --Alan

Is the canon policy the relevant one here? None of the above are canon. Where is the relevant policy that says MA covers licensed/authorized works from a real-world perspective? Maybe this and this? --TribbleFurSuit 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you yourself are still referring to the Canon Policy and again, referring to things that are "officially licensed." Either way, it would seem that if we have guidelines for the application, or rather, the non-application of "invalid resources" or "non-canon resources" we certainly wouldn't want to establish a double standard by creating an article to something we can't technically reference. --Alan 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Reference works" article was quite an eye-opener. Given that information, we should probably merge this article into some other appropriate place. The material about the fusions being mentioned (which is later mentioned in Pocket Books) is too significant to discard. And it is undeniable that the flag admiral pin does appear in Data's medals case from "The Most Toys". BTW, about that, I sent out an e-mail to an old contact at the now out-of-business Hollywood Pins to find out more about the history of that pin. I'll post the reply here when it comes. As for this article, a merge is fine...just need to decide where. -FC 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Based on info above, Fan publications would probably be the best place to put the book cover. The flag admiral pin is is covered now in the fleet admiral article. Last remaning question is where to put the info about the fusions. A background note perhaps in Klingon augment virus? In any event, merging seems the way to go here. I leave that in the capable hand of the administrators. -FC 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe it's necessary to put any note about fusions anywhere, at least not in relation to this fan work. This manual isn't the source for the fusion elements in the novels - licensed works about the fusions came first. Not all, but, since this isn't the source, it's not worth connecting any dots to it. If you wanted to just expand the augment virus article or the articles we have about the specific novels to show that the fusions were an apocryphal plot, that would be fine, but we don't even consider expanded-universe content apocryphal unless there's a really, really good reason. If this WAS the source of that plot element, then the novel pages would be the place for it and that actually would be a good reason, but it's not the source. --TribbleFurSuit 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That was sort of lengthy but in short I support including apocryphal information from the novels but not information regarding this manual. --TribbleFurSuit 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A merge tag has been added and the section below included in Klingon Augment Virus.

The manual also deals heavily with why the Klingons from Star Trek: The Original Series appear differently from Klingons in later eras. The manual explains that such Klingons were "Klingon-Human fusions" designed to make infiltration into Federation space more easier. This concept was later picked up by several Pocket Books authors and is further explained in Rules of Engagement, and other novels. The manual was written long before the explanation of the Klingon augment virus which is the canon explanation for this difference.

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCaptain (talk • contribs) .

I don't think that there's anything left to merge. Apocrypha from licensed works was already merged, and so was the production detail about the pin. Now what's left is material that MA does not cover. The Fan Publications page lists the existence of the KCOM, and that's as far as MA goes on fan stuff. The contents belong at the STEU wiki, not MA. The rest of this article should be completely removed. --TribbleFurSuit 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Der Book Cover :-) It can go at the bottom of the fan publication page with the rest of them. Thats all thats left. -FC 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's classy. --TribbleFurSuit 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)