Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Canon

Isn't TAS considered canon because Mudd's Passion is a sequel to I, Mudd? --75.16.33.186 (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Gene Roddenberry had decided to de-canonize TAS because he was unhappy with the way it turned-out. I read that at the Star Trek canon article. Since its another WP article and has been cited as sourced, I am, not sure if that qualifies as original research or not. Xerobane 08:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the other books by Marc Okrand classified - apart from The Klingon Dictionary which can be found in the Canon: Reference guides section. I especially mean The Klingon Way, Klingon for the Galactic Traveller, and similar books by other authors, e.g. Lengends of the Ferengi. Are they Canon or Non-Canon? They are neither novels nor comics, their type are not mentioned anywhere. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I have written an article on The Klingon Way and it was immediately contested by certain Users and marked for deletion. The discussion is goming on. noychoH (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount has official statements about what is and what is not canon. Not sure why this page has any ambiguity in it at all. Not sure why there is a "semi-canon" section - there is no such thing other than people's desires (POV) to elevate it to such status. StarHOG (Talk) 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]