Difference between revisions of "Talk:Quantum torpedo"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Talk:Quantum Torpedo moved to Talk:Quantum torpedo: de-capitalizing) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The tech manuals are 100% non-canon and have no place in debates, thus no place here. --[[User:Stark|Stark]] 17:27, 7 November 2007 (EST) | The tech manuals are 100% non-canon and have no place in debates, thus no place here. --[[User:Stark|Stark]] 17:27, 7 November 2007 (EST) | ||
*I rather doubt it causes any harm to discuss information from secondary sources like the TM's, as long as it's clearly stated that isn't canon. Still, this is the sort of thing that's going to need to be covered in a policy page. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 17:32, 7 November 2007 (EST) | *I rather doubt it causes any harm to discuss information from secondary sources like the TM's, as long as it's clearly stated that isn't canon. Still, this is the sort of thing that's going to need to be covered in a policy page. --[[User:Ted C|Ted C]] 17:32, 7 November 2007 (EST) | ||
**Yeah, I was going to add something about a need for policy. As an encyclopedia, it should be here, but as an SDN encyclopedia I'm not sure it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as actual evidence. ST secondary sources, being 100% non-canon, are going to be even less useful than SW:EU stuff, in any case. --[[User:Stark|Stark]] 17: | **Yeah, I was going to add something about a need for policy. As an encyclopedia, it should be here, but as an SDN encyclopedia I'm not sure it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as actual evidence. ST secondary sources, being 100% non-canon, are going to be even less useful than SW:EU stuff, in any case. It depends if this is supposed to be a debate resource, or a wiki-representaion of SDN. --[[User:Stark|Stark]] 17:45, 7 November 2007 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:47, 12 November 2007
The tech manuals are 100% non-canon and have no place in debates, thus no place here. --Stark 17:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- I rather doubt it causes any harm to discuss information from secondary sources like the TM's, as long as it's clearly stated that isn't canon. Still, this is the sort of thing that's going to need to be covered in a policy page. --Ted C 17:32, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, I was going to add something about a need for policy. As an encyclopedia, it should be here, but as an SDN encyclopedia I'm not sure it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as actual evidence. ST secondary sources, being 100% non-canon, are going to be even less useful than SW:EU stuff, in any case. It depends if this is supposed to be a debate resource, or a wiki-representaion of SDN. --Stark 17:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)