Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Bad rendering

Why is the following failing to render in bold?

Acegikmo1 04:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because it sees a group of 3, then a group of 2, and a group of five, and gets confused. Put a space in the middle of the last group as I've done, to make it look like '' '''' instead of '''''. --Golbez 05:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should Star Trek have it's own Stub page?

Just wondering... should we have a Star Trek stub page? Allyunion 14:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean a list of Star Trek stubs, or what? --Golbez 14:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ya, that's what I'm specifically referring to, with maybe a template to go with it. Something like trek-stub: This article is a Star Trek stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Allyunion 13:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moving to series articles

This article is far too long. It contains more information about TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY than their individual pages do. I think a lot of information needs to be moved out of this article and into the pages about each specific series, but I'm not sure how to determine what should still remain here. Any ideas? - Brian Kendig 18:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the first step by merging the TOS section into Star Trek: The Original Series. I intend to work on merging data from here into the other series' articles as soon as I get a chance. I figure this Star Trek article has enough to do, summarizing the planets, characters, comics, undeveloped series, novels, fan fiction, pop culture, and future of the franchise; it doesn't need to duplicate too much info about the individual series. Though I'd still like to have more than just a link to the series articles - what do you think belongs here from 'em? - Brian Kendig 17:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I propose a brief summary, maybe one paragraph and then link to an approprate lengthly article. I think we should keep the fan history here and the overall show history. --Allyunion 06:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" headers into links, that link to their obvious own section. It had already been done for Enterprise and Voyager, so I didn't see a reason for them not to be done. If TOS and the animated series have their own sections, I suggest doing it there too, for consistency. Spinboy 16:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I was pondering this - I think it doesn't make sense for a section heading to be a link to another article. Especially since I put "For more information, see Star Trek: The Next Generation" in the section to make sure people know there's another article, and that links to the same place. I feel that the section headings shouldn't be links, and I was also considering removing the years from the section headings, because that's also redundant and IMHO the heading should just be a simple statement of what's in the section. What do you think? - Brian Kendig 18:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

wp WP:MOS

I think the Manual of Style agrees with you. "Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." Common usage is " Main article: Main article " - David Gerard 18:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think even though they have their own sections, they should have a paragraph or two summary of the series, and I've seen the header's linked in other articles, so I see no reason it can't happen here. I also think the other articles should link back to the main one. Spinboy 18:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek Timeline or History

A thought came to me when I was exploring the Wikipedia and I ran into the World War III article. Is there some kind of Star Trek timeline or something regarding the events of the future in some kind of outline or something? Star Trek's history with the 20th century is slightly different from the actual history of our own. Perhaps it may be worthly to create an entry on the subject regarding the difference between actual history and Star Trek's fictional history -- along with any jumps and visits in time that should be included... obviously, the top of the page would require a spoiler warning. Kind of like a timeline of all the shows in a brief summary, using Stardates and real dates (whenever possible). --Allyunion 10:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Timeline of Star Trek along the lines of what you are considering? Right now it has only spotty coverage, without much indication of which series portrays or refers to any given event.
Anville 13:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Star Trek: TAS not canon?

I noticed on the TAS page it states that Gene Roddenberry also requested soon before his death that the series not be considered canon Can this be supported with evidence? Mysteronald 23:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One source is the book The Star Trek Chronology in which this was discussed. I don't know how "soon" before his death this actually occurred but it didn't become public knowledge until around the time he died. Roddenberry's attitude towards TAS and Treks V and VI have also been discussed at length by various writers for the show in online forums such as TrekBBS. 23skidoo 17:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wait a sec. Admitedly, I've never seen any TAS, and V is well, V. but not only was VI good, it is essentially required to make the TOS TNG dichotomies work out right. without VI, TNG would have to be considered non-canon. Am I just drawing blanks, what?

Spot (Star Trek)

The article Spot (Star Trek) is currently up for VfD. Please see the VfD Discussion page to either help keep or delete the page. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Kiss

It's entirely possible that they have inserted the "kiss shown" version in newer broadcasts of the show. But the original broadcast had it blocked, according to the IMDB and other sources I've read. But I WAS wrong; I said it was Kirk's head, it was actually Uhura's. Relevant passages from the IMDB:

The first interracial kiss on American network television was in the episode "Plato's Stepchildren," which aired on 22 Nov 1968, when Captain Kirk ( William Shatner) kissed Lieutenant Uhura ( Nichelle Nichols). The studio expressed some concern, and it was suggested instead that Spock should kiss Uhura 'to make it less of a problem for the southern [US] audience'. Some stations in the South originally refused to air the episode. Kirk did not kiss Uhura *voluntarily*; they were forced to do it by aliens controlling their bodies. So the first interracial kiss, although between two of the good guys, was the moral equivalent of sexual assault.
Despite the controversy of the first interracial kiss of Kirk and Uhura on television in the episode "Plato's Stepchildren," they never actually kissed on-screen - Kirk turns away from the camera as they draw closer keeping Uhura in front of him, obscuring the fact that their lips stay an inch or so apart.

They could be wrong. --Golbez 14:36, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Make no mistake about it, in many, many interviews and books, Mr. Shatner has admitted that he had, up to that point, wanted to kiss Ms. Nichols on screen. --AllyUnion 13:26, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek

Just started the above page. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek.--StAkAr Karnak 03:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek Science subsection

What happened here? All that's left is one line saying "You can't have Star Trek without the science." That's pretty useless on its own -- has something been cut that shouldn't have been? 23skidoo 17:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added by User:Roberto1221 on 23 Nov 2004. Seems to me a new user who added that portion of the article, left unnoticed until now. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sense?

Hi - I'm agreeing with the post directly above. The sentence below is just nonsense and I'll remove it after checking back in a bit. I would like to to note that in terms either of technology or science, star trek is rather silly. I really do defy anyone to dispute that. Perhaps that is what the person who wrote that sentence was trying to say? In which case, I would disagree. We all like star trek because it portrays a vision of the future in which everyone tris to be the best person that they can; with cool spaceships to help them! Thats why they call it a fantasy!

Star Trek Science

Any decent Star Trek fan should know that even with technology you wouldn't get Star Trek without the science.

Ah... Usenet Star Trek debates come to Wikipedia.... ;-) func(talk) 19:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

Do we have permission to use the images that are in this article? They all seem to be a giant copyvio to me. Spinboy 18:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek Technology

I removed this section from the article:

In every episode of Star Trek some sort of technology from the shows period is used. The Technology is a important part of Star Trek, without it Star Trek would not be as popular as it is today. The most prominant piece of technolgy is probably the Warp Drive, the Starships of Star Trek use the Warp Drive to get around the Galaxy.

The above is not written in an encyclopedic manner. It suggests a POV, and doesn't really say anything coeherent. I believe there is a place for a technology section, (even a whole separate article), but the above is not a good way to go about it. This is a wikipedia featured article, and I think we need to strive for a certain level of encyclopedic quality and NPOV. func(talk) 19:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Enterprise NPOV

This is the last paragraph from the section on Enterprise. It seemed a bit one-sided and POV to me, so I altered it a bit.

From: Enterprise is highly unpopular with many diehard fans, due to its blatant disregard for continuity or adherence to the technical/physical limitations put into place by previous Star Trek series/movies. This has improved somewhat with Manny Coto coming in as co-executive producer, but the series' poor reputation still seems to stifle ratings.

To: Enterprise has been highly unpopular with many diehard fans, due to their perception of blatant disregard for continuity or adherence to the technical and physical limitations put into place by previous Star Trek series and movies in the current series. This situation has improved somewhat with Manny Coto coming in as co-executive producer, but the series' poor reputation with these fans still continues to stifle ratings. Ttownfeen 11:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I felt it could still be a bit more NPOV so I have edited it further. An earlier version IIRC made reference to the ratings woes being due partly to UPN's own difficulties, and I have restored this. The thing is a lot of people like ENT and a lot of people hate it, and we have to be careful that no agenda on either side wins out. Words like "blatant" for example are loaded words, IMO, plus it's important to note that such accusations of continuity violations are disputed by those who support the show (check out the rebuttals in the Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems article). Not to harp on ENT specifically - I've also found myself fixing for NPOV when it comes to statements made regarding Voyager and DS9 as well. 23skidoo 19:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your version sounds much better. Ttownfeen 00:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


Missing images

Currently there are a lot of missing images on the Star Trek page, which is a bad thing, esspecially for a featured article. I think this needs to be fixed but I don't know which image were used, does anyone still have them in their cause or does the original author still has them on his computer? Switcher 01:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've seen some other articles with missing images, too... are images being deleted? I wasn't aware that an image could be removed without a trace, without even history to tell what happened to it... - Brian Kendig 13:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to track it down... -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Spinboy deleted them. Restoring the images. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The images were deleted to copyright problems. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I don't know how the images were deleted but it was not in the deletion log prior before I deleted them... actually, I think I am going to restore them so that someone can refute the copyright problem issue. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If anyone cares to try to write a letter to Paramount for exclusive rights (of images) on the Wikipedia, write to: 

 Paramount Studios
 5555 Melrose Avenue
 Hollywood, CA 90038

-- AllyUnion (talk) 07:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The images are still missing. Aren't images of Star Trek spaceships covered under fair use? I can't believe that we'd be disallowed from showing the image of any Star Trek ship. Additionally, why were some images removed from the article, but others weren't? And what prompted the images to be removed in the first place - did Paramount complain, or did a Wikipedian take the law into his own hands? - Brian Kendig 14:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who listed the images as copyvio. I only did those, because those were the only ones I had linkbacks for, and I presumed that to list it, you needed the origional URL. If that is not the case, I would have listed the others as well. Spinboy 20:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If these photos in the Star Trek article are not allowed, then how come the photos in Babylon 5, Galactic Empire (Star Wars), Firefly (television series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and other articles are? What's the difference? - Brian Kendig 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's a good question for the copyvio ppl. Spinboy 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha - I'm asking right now on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Question: what do you mean by having a "linkback"? Do you mean that the images you removed were ones you verified as having been copied from the startrek.com official web site, or something? - Brian Kendig 21:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page Problem

This talk page appears to have somehow gotten its sections duplicated: section edits aren't getting put where you'd expect, among other things. I don't consider myself competent enough (or awake enough :-) to fix it without losing data... but I think someone probably ought to. --Baylink 03:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voyager - weakest series?

I totally disagree with saying that some fans consider Star Trek: Voyager the weakest of the Star Trek seies. I am a scientist, and I feel that Voyager has the best science writing in all the Star Treks.

Please sign your comments with four "~" symbols. I noticed that someone changed the word from "weakest" to "strongest" in the article, maybe to prove a point. I added a counter statement in order to balance out NPOV. 23skidoo 17:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the LACK of Gayness?

It strikes me as more than a bit silly that someone just added an entire paragraph explaining that Star Trek didn't show homosexual characters. By this standard, every single work of fiction that doesn't have homosexual characters needs a special paragraph. And, while we're at it, a special one noting the lack of american indians, born again christians, et cetera.

Or, more rationally, perhaps such things should only be given a full paragraph there's actually something special to be said about it, or where it's relevent to the subject of the article directly. I vote for either deleting it, or cutting it down to a short mention in the "diversity" paragraph. Stands out as a PoV commentary right now, perhaps by some self-involved contributor. Kaz 02:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't added it was undeleted if I remember correctly. I am not the one who wrote it but it seems to me that it is a special issue. Not only did political Paramount manueverings and Roddenberry's death effect this but in a utopia everyone is free. I think there should however be mention of the transgendered species line by Data at the beginning of the last movie. This line was a great inclusion of the GLBT community but the use of the word species as opposed to individuals makes it seem as if there are no longer transgendered humans. Alison9 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This reminds me of the early artificial intelligence researchers who first ran into problems formulating knowledge in computer-parseable format. There's a great Marvin Minsky quote which runs something like, "Birds can fly, unless their wings have been clipped, or if they have evolved into a state of flightlessness, or if fifty-kilogram weights have been chained to their legs, ... or if they've undergone a psychological trauma of such severity that it left them incapable of flight." To resolve this sort of difficulty, they cooked up the notion of "circumscription", which assumes that X is capable of doing Y unless there is a rule specifically forbidding it. By this logic, the Star Trek universe should have openly gay characters, unless a rule within the fictional universe expressly forbids it. Har har.
More seriously, I think that the absence of homosexual characters falls into a different category than the observed lack of, say, born-again Christians. Unlike some people reading this paragraph right now, I haven't seen every Trek episode ever made, but in the sizeable sampling I've conducted, I've noticed that the people who have strong religious beliefs or a large religious component to their society tend to be aliens. Somebody should look into this. Having read a few sources intended for the people who make Trek stories—particularly the "writers' bible" for Phase II—I would argue that in the Trek cosmos, the Federation is generally intended to represent the success of scientific rationality and the triumph of technology (used with a modicum of humanism). Therefore, any direct reliance upon the supernatural, particularly the use of an anthropomorphic deity, would be out of character. It's all right for Federation representatives to invoke a generalized, halfway spiritual belief system to back up their morality, but quoting chapter and verse is right out.
Put more directly: I believe there is a rule within the Trek universe which forbids a large group of its characters from expressing the born-again syndrome. That meme is circumscribed.
Whether the same is true for sexuality and sexual orientations, well, I can't say. One should point out that, on the whole, Trek stories are not sexually driven. (We can say the same about Isaac Asimov's fiction; in "Gold", he even suggests that his readers may find the break from such stories refreshing.) Kirk may take every chance he gets to bed the luscious princesses (a tendency admirably spoofed in Futurama's Zap Brannigan, as well as the film GalaxyQuest), most of these instances are portrayed rather romantically. Even disregarding the effect network censorship had on Kirk's liasons, almost all of them originated from some other plot development. In "Bread and Circuses", for example, the Roman proconsul lends Kirk his curvy blonde slave, so that he may live his last night "like a man". Casual sex, intercourse for immediate pleasure and gratification, doesn't often enter the plot.
Now, if the canonical Trek stories don't put much emphasis on straight sex, how strongly should we impartial Wikipediholics stress the lack of gay characters?
On the flip side, what the canonical stories are missing, the fanfic community provides in bushels. An essay collected in Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition (Thorburn and Jenkins, eds.), argues that Internet fan fiction is a culturally and psychologically significant movement, in which many contributors are motivated to provide the elements they believe should exist within a fictional universe, but which the official creators do not furnish. In Star Trek''s case, this extends to creating a romance between Janeway and Seven of Nine. Perhaps fanfic is too peripheral or too disreputable to include such a comment?
Finally, we shouldn't forget the DS9 episode "Rejoined", where Jadzia Dax encounters another Trill who had been married to one of Dax's previous (male) hosts. Thanks to the fact that Trill symbionts can easily switch from one gender host to another (exactly why Sisko called Jadzia "old man"), the re-kindling of their affection poses intriguing issues.
Anville 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek books

While I have never seen hints towards homosexuality in Star Trek canon, I have seen it in books. Two examples:

  • Bart Faulwell, the linguistic in the S.C.E. series, writes love letters to Anthony Mark, who also seems to be male.
  • In the novel The best and the brightest, Jayme Miranda is in love with another woman, a Trill named Moll Enor. The Trill symbiont thing mentioned above can't explain this, as Moll is the first host of the Enor symbiont.

193.167.132.66 07:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is also considerable amounts of slash fiction out there based on Trek, and early printings of the officially licenced novel "Killing Time" contained some mild slash elements between Kirk and Spock and that were removed by the publisher for subsequent editions. 23skidoo 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Both examples I wrote above, while not canon, are officially licensed. And I think they make it pretty clear that the characters in question are in love with people of the same sex. I guess the book authors have taken a bolder attitude with time. 193.167.132.66 10:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would the anonymous user who keeps removing Wikilinks for Manny Coto and other topics please stop doing so? There aren't any articles on these subjects yet, but we are still supposed to make links to that when someone does write an article, they will already be linked. Please refer to Wikipedia policy. Thanks. 23skidoo 20:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have put a slight warning on the talk page. If he continues, use {{test2}} and list him on WP:VIP -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, AllyUnion. Nice to know we have an angel; ghod knows we probably need one. To clarify for the anon in question: it is not at all uncommon for an article writer editor to make a wikilink to an article which they are not sure currently exists. If it does, then great. If not, then it becomes a "Wanted Article", and someone else will likely eventually click through and write. So, following the Be Bold theory, you're effectively asking that someone who knows more about that subject than you write the article, or at least it's beginning. --Baylink 03:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Captain AllyUnion, administrator of Wikipedia, at your service. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ack, didn't see this before I took out the ship names... I'm still figuring this place out. Please don't punish me :O( I see your point about the producer's name, but the ships names aren't even linked from the Virgin Atlantic article. Regardless, I won't take them out again if you think they should be there. I'm very sorry to have caused any trouble. 4.154.66.123 18:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion wasn't directed at your edits, so no worries! 23skidoo 19:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Inconsistancies

Hmm... I don't see this around... -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you're asking here ... ;-) 23skidoo 17:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there an article that lists all the Star Trek Incosnsitancies that the Star Trek writers have introduced? Such as Voyager's shuttle problem, etc. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Condensing/reorganizing article

I'm fairly new to wiki editing, so I don't want to step on any toes with any of the "usual" editors for this page... A few thoughts on the article layout that I'd like to run by anyone who's listening: Even though the 32k limit is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule, the article size is becoming a bit awkward for dial-up connections like my own, and doubly so when editing. Of course, you don't want to remove anything arbitrarily for size reasons alone, so I have a few suggestions that I think make sense:

  • I'm wondering if the section on "Society and Star Trek" should receive its own article. There's quite a bit of room for discussion on this, and giving this a separate article might make authors feel less constrained about minimizing their comments.
  • I also wonder if Role-Playing Worlds would be better suited to a new article. Maybe "Star Trek Role-Playing Worlds"?
  • Although this wouldn't really shrink the article at all, if you don't like the above two suggestions, I wonder if "Role-Playing Worlds" should be at least promoted to its own sub-section. It seems dubious to me if it really falls under "Society and Star Trek" in any but the broadest sense, and it certainly has enough material to support a full section.

Again, not trying to push anyone's buttons, just trying to make a few helpful suggestions.  ;-) Roger McCoy 09:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Doesn't everyone have cable modems in 2005? I'm surprised! In any event, your ideas are excellent. One of the "rules" here is "Be Bold". If you have an idea that you think is worth trying, go for it. There is no particular "owner" to any article although there are some Wiki users who might become, for lack of a better word, regular custodians of an article. I agree that Society and Star Trek could use its own article, as could Star Trek role playing. The only thing to be careful of is don't simply cut-and-paste and leave it at that. When creating a spinoff article you need to make it truly stands alone and is also well linked to the main article, lest someone thinks the article is not worthy of Wikipedia and flags it for Votes for Deletion. Have fun! 23skidoo 16:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved out the entire society and star trek section (includes the role-playing bit) to Society and Star Trek since I'm not on dialup :) The new article could use some tweaking (like a better introduction) and Star Trek needs a summary. Cburnett 17:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A summary of the new article, like a paragraph should be placed back into the main article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent Voyager section edit/revert

Before we get a revert "war" happening in the Voyager section, I've put back the statement that fans felt Voyager was weaker than its predecessors a couple of times after the statement has been deleted. The fact Voyager is not as popular as the shows before it is not a POV statement, and is balanced out by the statement the show has its supporters. IMO if this line is cut, then the remaining paragraph regarding Enterprise being controversial needs to be cut as well. I have changed the Voyager statement by removing the word "any" which may have been interpreted as POV. If the consensus is to remove it, I'm fine with that so long as the paragraph about ENT being controversial is also removed, which it could easily be considering it (like most of the material I edited out a couple days ago) is already covered in the main article. 23skidoo 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We don't disagree with the entprise bit being cut, cut it if you want. The voyager bit needs to be though, it was the best star trek series and saying it was the worst...is not good. Mention of ratings and all that to say it didn't perform as well as others is fine though mentioing that a few disgruntled trekkies think it isn't as good as the others is POV and/or pointless. --Josquius 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But you see my point. By just stating that Voyager is the best, you are stating a POV that a lot of people may not agree with. You'll get people saying DS9 and ENT and TNG were the best as well. The fact the series is considered weaker by critics is a matter of record, but to say so you have to balance it out by saying others feel differently, and I feel the statement covers this. Just as if you were to say "Voyager is the best" (a statement I personally disagree with) you need to acknowledge that people feel differently. Granted, such is the case with all the Trek series, but like it or not, Voyager and Enterprise received a lot more negative press than the previous shows, and this is worth noting. But if one statement gets cut the other needs to be too. But I'm going to wait to see a few more votes before I do anything myself. 23skidoo 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps some reasons could be given for why people believe that Voyager is or isn't the weakest series. In my opinion, Voyager suffers badly from:

  • overuse of the "Big Red Reset Button" which restores the status quo at the end of the episode and wipes out any character or plot advancement from one episode to the next
  • lack of character development or conflict between characters (chars are pretty much the same at the end of the series as they were at the beginning, especially Harry Kim, and nothing came of the "Fed vs. Maquis crews not trusting each other" promise in the pilot)
  • frequent portrayal of alien species as conniving and backstabbing - how many times did an enemy race betray Janeway and others?
  • a terribly weak portrayal of the Borg - they went from being a threat of the entire Federation to being easily outfought/outsmarted by one little ship
  • a lack of any sense that the crew was having trouble by being so far from home - they never ran out of torpedoes, shuttles, etc.

Josquius, what are some reasons you believe Voyager was the best series? - Brian Kendig 19:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am saying voyager is best here on discussion, not on the article. Critics are not universal in saying it is worse, some say it is the best however most see it as a middle series. I think what it mainly is is Trekkies dislike it however those who are not too into other Star Trek like it.

For Voyager being best its too late for me to go into it, I'll put them here on another day. It is mostly just a case of personal enjoyment, its the one which entertained me the most. TOS is terrible without having grew up with it, TNG is a bit boring with not much happening, DS9 goes between even more boring then TNG and one of the greatest things ever and Enterprise is a bit too much on 'T'pol, strip down to your underpants please'--Josquius 21:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I'm fine with the quality/controversy/popularity comments for both VOY and ENT being cut since both articles cover these aspects suitably. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. (I'll let others duke it out over which show they feel is the best - POV away on the discussion page! ;-) ) Cheers! 23skidoo 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to say that some fans think this or some fans think that, you need to include sources.Avoid weasel terms AlistairMcMillan 07:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exception (as stated on WP:AWT):
When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats." (Though here, too, the opinion or preference is under discussion, very little actual information is transmitted.)
How exactly does one quote "half" the fan-base of something like Star Trek......and do it a second time for the opposing side? Cburnett 08:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think we need the disputed comments in this article, because (as others point out) the issues are covered on the actual series pages. However a simple way to cite the popularity would be to just cite the ratings. AlistairMcMillan 09:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go there. There is a lot of controversy over the ratings, particularly with regards to Enterprise, with supporters (like me) of the view that they simply aren't accurate (the Enterprise article explains why in detail). Les Moonves (the man who cancelled the series) actually went on record recently as saying the same thing, except he was referring to the ratings for David Letterman. BTW I see the two statements were cut again. Maybe we need an admin to make the decision? I'd hate for this to become a revert war. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


You can't dispute the fact that Voyager had really weak ratings compared to TNG or DS9. Voyager unlike the other shows was full of plot holes and technobabble. It was even in danger of being cancelled until the magic of big breasts saved it. TNG and DS9 never sufferd that fate. Voyager was the beginning of the end for Star Trek. Furious Stormrage 19:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to accurately compared Voyager to TNG/DS9 in terms of popularity because the earlier series were seen more widely than VOY (and, later, Enterprise) because UPN only had limited coverage of the US. If anything, the lower than expected ratings for Voyager should have convinced Paramount to put Enterprise into syndication (not to mention Voyager itself) but they didn't. IMO the decision to move to UPN was what marked the beginning of the end for Star Trek, not whether Voyager had good stories or not. I don't even like Voyager yet I'll defend it on that point. 23skidoo 19:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


UPN had about a 65%(?) coverage of USA so the possible audience was smaller then TNG and DS9 had but that doesn't excuse it. TNG was started to lose it's mainstream audience at season 6 and DS9 was losing it from the start. The diffrenece was that these shows weren't losing them at the rate that Voyager did. The highest rated episode voyager had was Caretaker. After that the audience just went away in droves. The limited exposure doesn't matter when your losing the audience you already have. Furious Stormrage

Fan section

I completely rewrote the fan fiction part of the page. My computer was acting up, and admittedly the first couple of edits were sloppy. I cut out a lot of material so I would not unduly cover one section, but some of the stuff could be put back into it. I put the original paragraph here. (Removed 7-27) Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not support this change at the moment and have reverted back one more time.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly prefer that draft to the current one. The attention given to Axanar seems disproportionate.Donners (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what is up with Wikipedia today. Previews aren't showing the whole text. It is extremely hard to edit like this. Moreover, Wikipedia isn't signing properly.

I agree, I probably should have worked on the paragraph more than what I did. I just think the original section focused too much one two series, Star Trek Phase II and Star Trek Axanar. The Star Trek fan films are quite diverse and should have better representation than what they have at the moment. Moreover the details about the two fan productions is way too much, considering the fact that this is a page that discusses the Star Trek Franchise as a whole. I am willing to discuss this, but "I do not support this change at the moment" is a bit vague.(Dunno who's signature is supposed to be here, but it ain't mine)
Testing....test, test, test.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Y'all forgot a closing ref tag. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not Y'all. But at least it has been figured out.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph above because it was causing weird formatting errors on this page. The Star Trek fan productions page did not have a Axanar section, so I basically copy/pasted the same paragraph onto that page. . . It isn't going away, it is just moved to a different page. I am going to try to merge what I wrote with the existing stuff. I really think the phase 2 and the axanar stuff needs to get a major trim. . . . Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've haven't figured out since I sometimes improve a little bit since I got books about it. JJ98 (Talk) 20:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural impact : Technology section

How long is this page expected to be semi-protected? Surely not indefinitely, that seems like overkill. Isn't the typical length six months or something?

There should be a specific sub-section under Cultural impacts for Technology that was inspired by Trek. They are scattered among the Trek articles in wikipedia, but it's an important part of Trek's legacy. Things like the cell phone, tricorders, iPads, etc.

Surely this is at least an important a category as magazines, which does have its own subsection? 75.17.118.247 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Axanar

Erm, Star Trek: Axanar redirects here, but is not mentioned in the article. 78.35.193.39 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It mentions about it in Star Trek fan productions as well as the planned fan film. JJ98 (Talk) 07:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

I notice a grammatically ill-formed sentence, i.e. "Moreover, the show is noted for its progressive for its era civil rights stances", which perhaps should be "Moreover, the show is noted for its progressive civil rights stances." Sam Joseph (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good catch; change made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Add to parody section

There is a Finnish parody series called Star Wreck. It has become somewhat notorious in Finland--92.114.148.141 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Have any third-party sources taken note of it? DonIago (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion in Star Trek article suggestion

Reading the articles of Religion in Star Wars and Religion in The X-Files, gave me the idea for Religion in Star Trek. It could also be called Philosophy and Religion in Star Trek as the case with the SW article. Is anyone here up for starting it? I could contribute.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been super busy. I like the idea. There are some good memory alpha pages on the topic. Philosophy and Religion. This particular page also might be helpful. Oldag07 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean as a guide or as a source? They could help in digging out topics, but a bad idea for references as per WP:RS--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Guide of course. . . Oldag07 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldag07 that seems like a good idea. If you create one, I'd be happy to help fill it up.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nadirali نادرالی. It might be better you add to the memory alpha article. I am not a huge fan of the religion in Star Wars or X-files page. Oldag07 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldag07 that is because they are low in quantity, not in quality. Religion is also less discussed in The X-Files and Star Wars universes. Most of the discussion is outside of the universes; wheras we see more of it in Star Trek such as the Vulcans and Klingons. They celebrate religious holidays and commitments and many other planets where new religions are found. Such an article could be much bigger, not to suggest the SW and X-Files articles can't be expanded. I'm unfortunately busy working on other SW pages and can't create any articles for the time being, but can contribute on and off as I did when I created or expanded SW. It happens in several goes. The memory alpha article could be used as an external link.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

URL

The link for the official website needs to be fixed. Here is the URL: http://www.startrek.com/

Naf140230 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Corrected the web link. Thanks - Ninney (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion in Star Trek article

I created the Philosophy and religion in Star Trek article. Please help in improving it. There's plenty of sources for this. I even added a friendly search template in the talk page to help dig out sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kes

I wanted to include a short comment about Kes (from Star Trek: Voyager) in the ‘Conception and setting’ section as I believe this character is of special note even though she was not a major character in the Star Trek universe. SonOfThornhill undid my first edit (7 March) in this regard on the grounds that it over emphasized a secondary character, but a secondary character can represent a key theme better than some primary characters, while it is entirely appropriate to mention such a character when touching on this theme.

The theme being the humane values that underpin Star Trek. The second paragraph in the ‘Conception and setting’ section touches on this theme by noting that Starfleet is a “humanitarian and peacekeeping armada”, with the protagonists having “altruistic values”. I thought it appropriate to add a comment after this which states that Kes best embodies these values, by virtue of her short lifespan (nine years) and humanity, in keeping with her role as a medical assistant and her compassion for the other characters, notably The Doctor who was treated like a piece of furniture by other crew members until her intervention.

Minor or secondary characters can have a substantial role or impact, as when they act as narrators for events that occurred previously, such as Banquo’s ghost in Macbeth, or support the central theme as did the Boo Radley character in To Kill a Mockingbird. Boo had a substantial impact despite rarely appearing and minimal mention. His imposing appearance (tall with a jagged scar on his face, bad teeth, popping eyes and tendency to drool) seemed to confirm the negative stereotype of the ‘dangerous black man’, but once the conclusion is reached you know he is important to the story’s theme, and that without him the children would have been without his protection and an important lesson. That lesson is that most people similar to Boo are (like Boo himself) nice, once you get to know them. This supported the central theme of overcoming racial prejudice after a black man (Tom Robison) is accused of raping a white girl and this accusation is readily accepted by most whites due to negative stereotypes about black men, until his white lawyer (Atticus Finch) reveals the truth about the crime and the bigotry of people who jump to conclusions about black men accused of crimes.

Kes was not merely a memorable minor character like Serge, the desk attendant at the art gallery in Beverly Hills Cop, who had an effeminate manner and strange foreign accent (based on an the accent of an Israeli that the actor who played this role had once met). Serge was funny and amused us for a moment but was not important to the story and did not represent any underlying themes other than the desire to entertain the audience. In stark contrast, Kes was a regular member of Voyager’s crew from 1995 until the second episode of the fourth season, albeit in support of the primary characters. Kes was important to Star Trek as were all the other medical personnel in this franchise (beginning with Bones in TOS) by highlighting the importance of caring for the wellbeing of others; but Kes stands out due to her short lifespan (all the more so in contrast to The Doctor she worked with who was effectively immortal as he was a holographic projection of a computer program) and being the most caring cast member in any Star Trek series (as is apparent to anyone who saw all of them) which gave her an angelic quality that no other cast member possessed, which was accentuated by her deep voice that has an otherworldly feel about it which has to heard to be appreciated.

Thus Kes is more akin to Boo than the entertaining but disposable Serge, as her character (better than any other) represents the humane theme that underpins Star Trek. That said, my first edit was lazy as it merely repeated some information from the Kes page and failed to mention that she was a medical assistant; thus I modified my edit to the following: “The medical assistant Kes in Voyager best embodies the humane theme that underpins Star Trek due to her compassionate nature and short lifespan which reminds us of the fragility of life and the importance of loving relationships.” People who want to find out more about this character can visit the Kes page which describes her role in Voyager in detail, though one has to watch Voyager to fully appreciate my point. My edit may come across a tad ‘touchy feely’ to some (if less so than my original edit), but that is the nature of this theme, while we should not avoid any mention of this theme because doing so makes us a little uncomfortable as it needs to be noted. I hope this is acceptable to other editors and welcome any feedback. - Ocampa1 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. But it is just opinion without any credible source to back it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed we need reliable sources to add material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank SonOfThornhill and Tomwsulcer for their comments. Upon reflection SonOfThornhill is right that I put too much emphasis on the Kes character so thought it best to state that the medical personnel best embody the humane theme that underpins Star Trek and add that Kes is the most notable example to supplement this self-evident fact. Thus the emphasis is righty moved from Kes to medical personnel in general. The edit and source are as follows.

The medical personnel in Star Trek best embody the humane values that underpin this franchise, notably Kes in Voyager due to her short lifespan and humanity.[source]

[source] Lutz, Richard (February 2016). "Social Cohesiveness" (http://hrc-australia.org/info/socialcohesiveness.pdf). Human Rights Coalition (Australia). Retrieved March 18, 2016.

I did not use a direct quote from the source as it would have been unnecessarily long and include a reference to the actress who played Kes (Jennifer Lien) that was not needed in this context. I kept it as short as possible, while people who want to know more can visit the page about Kes and the source. I hope this is acceptable to editors. Please let me now if you have any concerns. - Ocampa1 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to stop adding opinion pieces to the articles. They don't really belong in an encyclopedia. Plus there is too much emphasis on the Voyager series which is a minor part of the overall franchise and the Kes character, a secondary character that was only on the show for three seasons. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. I'll try to reign in my fanboy obsessions. - Ocampa1 (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to work the other way around: find your sources first, then add what they say to the article, and follow your sentences right after using references. That way your content will (usually) stick in Wikipedia. One way to find sources is to type the term you're looking for (eg Kes) into your browser's search bar, then add into the bar a search string of reliable sources (you can find some here on my user page or you can make your own strings).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. Excellent advice. - Ocampa1 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

Please remove

The canonicity of Star Trek: The Animated Series is debated

because according to the Cannon issues section of the article for The Animated Series, and I quote:

On June 27, 2007, Star Trek's official site incorporated information from The Animated Series into its library section, clarifying, finally, that the animated series is part of the Star Trek canon. Both David Gerrold and D.C. Fontana have stated that the animated series is essentially the fourth season that fans wanted originally.

Also, the Animated Series section itself of the main Star Trek article clearly states, and I quote:

and as of June 2007, the Animated Series has references in the library section of the official Startrek.com web site.

So, it's quite clear that ST:TAS IS, without a shadow of a doubt, Star Trek canon. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, two things: At the Star Trek canon article, the animated series is listed as part of the canon, and the final sentence of the lead in that article reads, "The most recent iteration of the website has removed all references to a canon policy." So...
 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft outline

Just so people are aware, there's a draft for an outline of Star Trek at Draft:Outline of Star Trek. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Oldag07 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussing the renaming of the Reboot series to the "Kelvin timeline series"

A discussion about renaming the "reboot series" the "Kelvin timeline series" has been made at here. Please add your input. Oldag07 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor typo!

There is a minor typo in the line: Episodes will also be availablle on Netflix within 24 hours of their U.S. premieres.

The word "available" is misspelled.

That is all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithTParker (talk • contribs) .

I fixed it. Thank you. Calidum ¤ 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Full names of Star Trek characters

Many Star Trek characters have full names that have only been revealed in the novels and comic books.

Spock's full name is S'chn T'gai Spock.

Sarek's full name is S'chn T'gai Sarek.

McCoy's full name is Leonard Horatio McCoy (also called Leonard Edward McCoy).

Sulu's full name is Hikaru Kato Sulu (also called Itaka Sulu).

M'Ress's full name is Shiboline M'Ress.

Riker's full name is William Thomas Thelonius Riker.

Janeway's full name is Kathryn M. Janeway.

Should these be added to the relevant articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.166.224 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to add them but only in a Notes section since they come from a comic or novel. Citing the comic or novel that they came from of course. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ehhh, depends whether the article discusses non-canon. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia actually have a canon policy regarding content? 110.174.166.224 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

premiere date of the original star trek

Maybe add that the original star trek tv show was shown two days ahead of the NBC date on CTV in canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.197.250 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Discovery premier moved from January 2017 to May 2017.

Two adjustments made due to the push back of Star Trek: Discovery's premier from January 2017 to May 2017.

Located in the second large paragraph. Change "A new Star Trek TV series, titled Star Trek: Discovery, will premiere in January 2017 on the digital platform CBS All Access." to "A new Star Trek TV series, titled Star Trek: Discovery, will premiere in May 2017 on the digital platform CBS All Access."

Adjustment to the timeline graph. Change the Discovery grey marker bar to be more in the middle of the 2017 column than the beginning as the show is now premiering in May instead of January.

Located at the end of the '2009 Reboot' paragraph. Change "Star Trek will return to subscription-television in January 2017." to "Star Trek will return to subscription-television in May 2017."

Located in the "Discovery beginning 2017" paragraph. Change "On November 2, 2015, it was announced that a new Star Trek TV series is in development by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman. The new series will premiere on CBS All Access in January 2017." Friday, to "On November 2, 2015, it was announced that a new Star Trek TV series is in development by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman. The new series will premiere on CBS All Access in May 2017."


Cited source for changes: http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/star-trek-discovery-good-wife-spinoff-cbs-all-access-premiere-date-1201860613/ Drscifi (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Awards and honors

"SAG Award for Best Portrayal of an American Scene Feb 24, 1996 "The various 'Star Trek' TV series and movies also were recognized for 'outstanding portrayal of the American scene,' although they are set in space with an intergalactic cast of characters. Presenter Jimmy Smits noted that the mix of race and gender in all the casts embodied the American ideal. Actress Magel Barrett, widow of 'Star Trek' creator Gene Roddenberry, said she believes 'Star Trek' can last forever. 'It is our 20th century mythology,' she said."[1]

"The Screen Actors Guild will honor "Star Trek" for 30 years of diversity in casting with the special Outstanding Portrayal of the American Scene Award. Rick Berman, "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry's hand-picked successor, will accept the award during the second annual Screen Actors Guild Awards, being held Feb. 24 at Santa Monica Civic Auditorium for broadcast that same night on NBC"[2]

Getty Images Photo Link http://www.gettyimages.com/license/529500246 Getty Images Video Link (Nichelle Nichols, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry)http://www.gettyimages.com/license/75709905

References

  1. ^ http://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/02/25/SAG-Awards-to-Apollo-13-ER/8990825224400/
  2. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-25/entertainment/ca-28311_1_toy-story

LinQ TinQ (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)LinQ TinQ

new sentence

The sentence in the last paragraph of introduction sounds a bit too mysterious: “The franchise is also noted for its progressive civil rights stances”.[2] What “civil rights stances”? It should be at least briefly specified or properly referenced. If you check the reference #2 – you will not find it there.

What I have learned is that Star Trek characters are living in communist-like society: no money, no state, etc. I think that this fact is interesting, educative and important. I propose to include the following sentence: “It has been suggested that Star Trek society resembles communism”, with the following references: a) article by T. Warstall “Star Trek Economics Is Just True Communism Arriving”, Forbes, 2015, October 5; b) book by G. Ermak “Communism: The Great Misunderstanding”, 2016.

What do you think?

Prosto aneg (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no room in an Encyclopedia for "it has been suggested". It's one person with an opinion. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Dear Mlpearc,

Why do you say "one person with an opinion"? It seems unreasonable. You can see there two credible literature references, and many more could be found - this is opinion of many people. Would you like more references?

As for "It has been suggested", it can be modified to, for example, "It has been concluded".

Prosto aneg (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"this is opinion of many people", that's the problem it is opinion. Encyclopedia's deal in facts not opinions. And certainly not in the lead. It belongs more in the 'Cultural Impact' section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on the last part. This isn't lead material. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree and guess that we have consensus. This information (one sentence) has been incorporated into Cultural Impact section. Prosto aneg (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There really wasn't a consensus yet. Plus the sentence inserted was inaccurate and placed with too much prominence in the section. It has been moved to a later paragraph and re-worded for accuracy. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

Add note that Fan Film series or features have been seriously restricted as of June 2016.

Cite source: http://www.startrek.com/fan-films http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/paramount-cbs-establish-star-trek-fan-film-guidelines-20160624 Gavuain (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Info Box should be reordered

It now begins with "Print publications". That seems odd. Star Trek began on TV so the TV series should go first, then the films and then Print. This order would give proper weight to each element of the franchise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@SonOfThornhill: The infobox displays the tv series immediately beneath the image. The element "Print publications" has been in its current location within the infobox since 08:23, 30 August 2013. I could be wrong, but the order of elements within the infobox are controlled by the template coding. Mitchumch (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It still seems odd that 'Print Publications' comes before 'Films and television', that's not even alphabetical order. If it is possible, would you have any objection to it being re-ordered to put 'Films and television' first? SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@SonOfThornhill: I don't care. Mitchumch (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be an objection to reordering, I would propose the following order: Television first, then the Films, Print, Games, Misc. and then the Official Website. Is everyone OK with that? SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@SonOfThornhill: To reorder the infobox you will need to alter the coding for Template:Infobox media franchise. That template is used on 192 articles. You may want to post your intentions on the talk page for that template. Mitchumch (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But the template is just a guide for editors to cut and paste. It doesn't need to be changed. And as it says on the template page, "All parameters are optional", so there is no issue with reordering an infobox to more accurately represent the elements of a franchise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Using "the" with ship's names

A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted/re-reverted edits to the mainpage by the same initial editors (both here and there) has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Lead

I would have to disagree with the changes that Mitchumch has made to the lead paragraph.


Revision as of the writing of this post.

Star Trek is an American science fiction and entertainment franchise based on the television series created by Gene Roddenberry. The first television series, simply called Star Trek and now referred to as The Original Series, debuted in 1966 and aired for three seasons on the television network NBC. It followed the interstellar adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew aboard the starship USS Enterprise, a space exploration vessel, built by the interstellar federal republic United Federation of Planets in the twenty-third century. The Star Trek canon of the franchise include The Original Series, an animated series, four television series, the Star Trek film franchise and an upcoming television series scheduled to debut in 2017.

Revision before the major changes.

Star Trek is an American science fiction entertainment franchise created by Gene Roddenberry and owned by CBS and Paramount Pictures.[Note 1] The television series Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series,[Note 2] Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek: Discovery as well as the Star Trek film franchise make up the franchise's canon.

I personally don't like the new revisions, and I do not believe they fit with WP:LEAD. I feel the lead paragraph puts an undue weight on what the original series is about. I do feel a sentence describing the setting of the the whole series might be an approprate compromise.Oldag07 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there is probably undue weight given to the Original Series. Can you propose a compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I personally wrote the original, so I feel a bit biased when I say I like the original. I can't think tonight. Oldag07 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Hmmm. I like the first sentence in the new version, as I don't think GR was directly responsible for the evolution of the single series into a franchise. I also like that the beginning of the first paragraph dates when TOS originated. However, it might be best to move the linked series items into the rest of the paragraph. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The original was written in what wikipedia calls news style. Reading through the manual of style in this section, "In Wikipedia articles, the first sentence is usually more similar to a definition, the lead is longer, and it ultimately provides far more information, as its purpose is to summarize the article, not just introduce it.". Honestly, I know I have a lot of edits on this page, but I am more interested in the techinical stuff. I really am not much of a writer. Oldag07 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Star Trek" is the name of the original series. It is understandable to refer colloquially to the entire franchise as "Star Trek," but first and foremost, "Star Trek" is the name of the original series, end of story. Kubrickrules (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Majel Barrett

Majel Barrett is listed is a Co-Star under TOS and TAS, however she was also a guest in TNG,DS9 as Lwaxana Troi. Voyager and Enterprise as the voice of the Computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.130.137 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

the character John Billingsly plays is Dr. Phlox, not phlox. This link currently directs to the fauna, phlox Achurley42 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Section 3.8 should read An untitled series was announced on August 4, 2018 which will see Patrick Stewart reprise his role

Not respire. 32.210.194.134 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're missing a movie!

A whole two hour movie is missing from your article.
How can this be?
Star Trek - Starfleet Academy (1997)
Starring: William Shatner, Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Christopher Plumber,
to name a few...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFjKV9IcGV8
50.70.236.24 (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because it is a fan film edited from cutscenes from two video games? KIRKIN' OVERTIME: THE WEIRD LATE-’90S STAR TREK MASHUP YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT, WIRED Chris857 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing theme park in Germany

There is a location missing in the miscellaneous section on the right. Movie Land In Germany- Movie Land in Germany holds an entire Star Trek ride, featuring the bridge of the USS Enterprise 1701D and plenty of memorabilia from TNG and even has a borg on display. Plenty of Startrek merch from all genarations in the shop after the ride. [1] Tecdoug (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.startrek.com/article/operation-enterprise-officially-opens-at-movie-park-germany Movie
The Infobox lists four theme parks and exhibitions. It gives me the impression that these are part of the franchise and presumably owned by Viacom. The important question is whether the exhibit in Germany is on a par with these other four venues. For example, the Infobox ought not try to be a complete list of all Star Trek-related venues or products, such as the re-creation of the Enterprise bridge in upstate New York that William Shatner reportedly visited recently. Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Inspired by Captain Cooks journey to Australia

Sorry if I do this wrong ... but someone need to fix the errors on the main page re history of Star Trek being inspired by ect ect.

How can you talk about Star Trek an not mention that the show was based on the discovery of Australia by Arther Philip & captain cook, in their ships the Endeavour & the Enterprise ( 1788 )

“The creator of science-fiction series Star Trek was also famously inspired by Captain Cook and his ship, naming his fictional hero James T. Kirk and his spacecraft The Enterprise.

Kirk is the son of an Iowa farmer while Captain Cook was the son of a Yorkshire farmer.

The spoken line in Star Trek's opening credits "... to boldly go where no man has gone before" was inspired by a line in Cook's journal: "... farther than any other man has been before me ... as far as I think it possible for a man to go".”

Again sorry if I mess this post up. I just think it’s an important fact to be included in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.27.253 (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the question. You seem to be quoting from sources, and these are the sources which should be looked at in order to ascertain how accurate the assertion is. Is Roddenberry quoted in these sources? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The comparison between Cook and Kirk was studied in Blue Latitudes (2002) by Tony Horwitz. It is also possible members of the Captain Cook Society promote this concept… A blogger on SAILFeed posted about this subject in 2013, specifically naming the society. I am unsure if Roddenberry or any of his contemporaries made such comparisons/claims. Patrick Stewart did say Roddenberry considered Picard (not Kirk) to be an analogue of Horatio Hornblower in Chaos on the Bridge (2014). Rdzogschen (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Cheers for your reply, I just like to point out that I hardly think the Cook society would be even remotely interested in associating itself with Star Trek nor do I think anyone can ignore the facts
- James T Cook vets James T Kirk.
- The quote “ to boldly go” ect ect straight out of Captain James T Cooks Biographie about his 1770 journey to Australia.
- The fact the ships used to journey to Australia in 1770 where named, the HMS Endeavour & The HMS Enterprise.
Again I’m not saying I’m wright, just that any article should address the question in order to remain credible. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/endeavour-discovery-to-end-resting-place-theories/7382728

Cheers, & thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.7.19 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Does the Picard series have a title or not?

The subsection lists is as and untitled series, and then the first word of the text implies that it's titled Picard. Which is it? Babspage (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Untitled Picard series has yet to be given an official title. The *title will be released sometime before production begins in April. Rdzogschen (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have seen it called Star Trek:Picard TexasTechFan1701 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Not very useful without a source. DonIago (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop.

Please stop making judgements concerning content depth and placement without first seeking consensus. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Wanderer0 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for bringing this up. Why are we splitting this article up? Yet another list of Trek something? Why are the series name and films so Talosian-bad they must not be in the TOC? Why is content disappearing from this article or that? Who appointed this or that person sole arbiter of Trek articles? Why are good faith edits vanishing? It’s all seriously frustrating! Of course. This sort of behavior is what got it locked in the first place. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:74 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith per WP:AGF. But, sure. It's annoying there are content decisions being made about where things belong without any discussion. Including, but not limited to merging articles. Again, I am assuming good faith. Rdzogschen (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Star Trek (film series) redirect should have been handled as a H:MOVE. Or in the very least, the merge flag should've remained at the top of that article for weeks, possibly months! I saw it for one, possibly two days. The List of Star Trek films and television series is a good idea. But there has been ZERO discussion. ZERO! Especially how these changes affect Star Trek. Wanderer0 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The WP:MERGEPROP was sufficient, at least for me. Two days was the time the tag was visible before * poof *. Ah well, what is done is done. Question is how far do we abstract this content? (Talosian-bad, funny.) Rdzogschen (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Assuming good faith here too. I checked WP:STARTREK. Not any discussion there about this merge/split action. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:74 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't supposed there would be. Let's hope that changes. Wanderer0 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice any objection or discussion being prompted, so I got the impression that I was editing in a vacuum (of space). Though it was an unduely hasty voyage, I determined to boldly go where no snowball had gone before. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
You are editing in a vacuum. There are six, possibly, eight editors who regularly update Trek related articles. Rdzogschen (talk)
Mostly true. So limited community to gain consensus. Most Trek articles have not changed much since 2011… I think tightening prose and expanding detail (ex. Section 31 could use plot details) is far more important than abstraction, or making lists of lists or lists. IMHO, of course. Wanderer0 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely agree about tightening prose. Having a List article is helpful for a more expanded overview, without going into as much detail as the individual articles. See the equivalent lists for Alien, Star Wars, Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc. The non-list articles are for the franchise overviews in general. While those are all film-based franchises, there's also a lot of other content to cover, so description of the films themselves works better in a list format. Not that the same approach has to be used for every franchise, but some consistency is nice. Again, though, sorry for not gaining consensus rather than simply making bold edits. If there is any specific issue anyone would like to discuss specifically, I don't see any reason not to start that conversation. As far as the "Please stop" instruction, that was already done before this conversation began, really, but it's been a good opportunity to establish that, indeed, several others care about the specifics of how the article should/shouldn't be changed. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting TV series into subsections

Considering the number of new series coming out, maybe we should split the TV series section into a network television section and a streaming section. It might be too early for that, but it probably is a good time to start discussing it. Oldag07 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I somewhat agree here.Timur9008 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't think it is necessary. All we'll get is more headers.– Vilnisr T | C 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition to discovery there is 4 new series (Picard, section 31 a Lower Decks Series, and a Nickelodeon animated series) . A few extra headers might make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What exactly would it give? I actually don't see any difference between TV series and streaming series as format stays the same, only difference i see between Live action series and animated series.– Vilnisr T | C 12:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I could go with animated and live action. Oldag07 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox and "films in development"

Should the infobox list films or television series that are "in development"? I've only seen released products listed in other infoboxes. Mitchumch (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO, anything in the infobox should be, well, or at least established. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

reference #104

On June 06, Rdzogschen removed reference #104 (book "Communism: The Great Misunderstanding") and wrote: "Work cited is not specific to Star Trek, work cited is synopsized as broadly explaining communism, work cited does not include page numbers to verifiably support claim Star Trek is described as resembling communism. Removed. Please use Talk:Star Trek to discuss." I apologize for not realizing that the reference requires to include specific page number. The page that refers to Star Trek as resembling communism is #8. Please let me know if you would like to restore the reference and insert the page number (#8) or I should do this? Thanks, Prosto aneg (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Second timeline

There's a timeline showing, in our universe, when the series aired and when the movies were out. I'd like to suggest a second timeline, showing about when the stories are set in the Star Trek universe. Such a timeline would place Enterprise before TOS, for example. SlowJog (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC) edited 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Television cast table is too big

The cast table is too big, IMHO. And, I fear it has become less informative. How do we improve it? Limit to main cast only? Remove series with no shared actors? We should also ask ourselves: How much of the included detail is only of interest to fans. Rdzogschen (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Main cast only sounds like a good idea. SonOfThornhill (talk)
Yes. Main cast only. And remove Short Treks. The series has no Main cast. Wanderer0 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree about Short Treks. Changed all actors listed to guest. Rdzogschen (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek Universe

Recently (over the summer), during various convention panels/appearances/etc, the franchise as a whole was referred to as the Star Trek Universe (ref). Various logos were produced, while an official logo was generated (ref). This franchise as a whole has an official title at this point. Arguably, the title of the page should therefore be Star Trek Universe. Though this name has only debuted with the resurgence of the IP, with appointment of Alex Kurtzman as the 'Head of Star Trek' - it has now, "retroactively", named the massive franchise. Undoubtedly there will probably be naysayers. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a marketing term of art, and not an official (re-)name or (re-)brand. Wanderer0 (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article currently suffers from a lot of trivial information, fan-servicing, and fan-page layout. There are many run-on sentences and overall appears to be cluttered. A similar problem was discussed at the Star Wars article several months back. A cleanup effort was made and the page has a clear, concise, and structure appearance now. I would argue that something of a similar nature needs to occur here. I will begin work on this in a 'Sandbox' and share it here, when it finally looks better. It's going to take a very long time given the size of the franchise as a whole.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit away. Rdzogschen (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Edit your heart out. Wanderer0 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

To be honest, I am not the strongest of copyeditors. But the second paragraph needs a bit of copyediting. The changes I would make are big, so I figured we should discuss them before I make them.

In creating Star Trek, Roddenberry was inspired by C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series of novels, Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, and television westerns such as the Wagon Train.
  • Does this really belong in the introduction? Before mentioning the major tv shows of the series? I say remove it from the introdution
These adventures continued in the 22-episode Star Trek: The Animated Series and six feature films. six other television series were eventually produced:
  • Why is the fact that the animated series has 22 episodes in the same sentence that six featured films and six movies were created in the same sentence? Too much is being said in this paragraph. I know reading further you can see the rest of the movies, but mentioning only six films, and then mentioning more films is confusing. Moreover, we mention the fact that we mention the number of series in the previous paragraph. Why are we doing it again
Star Trek: The Next Generation follows the crew of a new starship Enterprise, set a century after the original series; Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager are set contemporaneously with the Next Generation, and Enterprise is set before the original series in the early days of human interstellar travel. The most recent Star Trek television series, Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard, air exclusively on the digital platform CBS All Access in the US.
  • Why were providing a disproportionate amount of details about the setting of Enterprise, and scant details about the setting of the rest of the series? I personally think we should cut all the details about the settings about any of the series in this paragraph.
The adventures of the Next Generation crew continued in four additional feature films. In 2009, the film franchise underwent a reboot with the creation in an alternate timeline, or the Kelvin Timeline, named after a starship featured in the film Star Trek. This film featured a new cast portraying younger versions of the crew from the original show; their adventures were continued in Star Trek Into Darkness (2013). Its sequel, Star Trek Beyond (2016),
  • Why are we mentioning the names of all the reboot films, but not even mentioning the name of the Motion Picture, the first film?
Star Trek: Lower Decks. Appearing on CBS All Access, it is scheduled to debut in 2020.
* Why just lower decks and not the section 31 show? Why here?

If no one has any objections, intend to rewrite this paragraph. I wouldn't mind if someone else took a stab at it. Oldag07 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The history, background, and series development seem fine and are of interest. How about starting at the reboot, where film names could be cut, as could the promo for CBS paid services, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have done Randy's suggestions. It still needs more copyediting. I am not having the information in the intro but I am against the way it is presented. Oldag07 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Some minor typos and grammatical errors could use touching up.

... for example, the phrase “the Wagon Train” should be changed to simply “Wagon Train”; the article “the” is improperly applied, here.

@Dunatis the White: Thanks for pointing this out. I fixed the one you mention above. Can you identify others specifically? Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-opening this discussion: Cleanup too soon/fast....

Okay first of all, why was this moved to 'cleanup' so fast? Secondly, the studio has continuously referred to the franchise as the Star Trek Universe. I am re-opening the discussion, below.... --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek Universe

Recently (over the summer), during various convention panels/appearances/etc, the franchise as a whole was referred to as the Star Trek Universe (ref). Various logos were produced, while an official logo was generated (ref). This franchise as a whole has an official title at this point. Arguably, the title of the page should therefore be Star Trek Universe. Though this name has only debuted with the resurgence of the IP, with appointment of Alex Kurtzman as the 'Head of Star Trek' - it has now, "retroactively", named the massive franchise. Undoubtedly there will probably be naysayers. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a marketing term of art, and not an official (re-)name or (re-)brand. Wanderer0 (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Disagree - the studios involved can use a franchise title, as marketing all they like. The franchise as a whole received a logo, and continues to be referred to as such. This seems like more than just a marketing technique. Proper discussion needs to follow, @Wanderer0:. Not just you shooting it down and deleting the discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
We'll see how the term is utilized in the coming weeks (or months). But at present, I've only seen it (rarely) in marketing materials for tie-in fiction and licensed products, but the actual products do not include it. We'll know more once the delayed Kelvin Timeline novels are released next year. They were announced at STLV as part of the "Star Trek: Kelvin Universe" series… Wanderer0 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Promotional materials from Simon&Schuster show the upcoming Kelvin novels will be marketed as plain ol' Star Trek, albeit using the upright word mark used by the films, versus the emph'd Star Trek from the Original Series. I have also not seen any uses of the Star Trek Universe in upcoming licensed releases (toys, comics, etc.), though a few catalogs did include the name in the subject headings. As you say, Wanderer0, it looks to be marketing-only to distinguish Trek from other franchises. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleting what? Shutting down what? Rdzogschen (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the autoarchiving. Wanderer0 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Figured that was part of it Rdzogschen (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
We aren't calling Star Wars "Star Wars Universe". Oldag07 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Star Trek: USS PAN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Star Trek: USS PAN. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Within "Enterprise (2001–2005)"

Change "Dominic Keating as Malcolm Reed" (links to an Australian footballer), to "Dominic Keating as Malcolm Reed" Burnt micah (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Guest appearances

Shouldn’t Pamelyn Ferdin , who would go on to be a big child star, such as the original Lucy of Peanuts, not be included as a guest on the episode ‘And the Children Shall Lead’? Vin720 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Special:Diff/951545319 - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Television?

As Discovery, Picard, and Short Treks aren't presented on television, they're not exactly television products are they? Isn't it about time this article got a web series section? 199.66.66.136 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would consider any episodic series presented on Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ or any other streaming service (like CBS All Access) as a television series, since Streaming is just another way to get content to your television (we dont differentiate between shows that are on broadcast television and those that are on a cable only channel, despite that being two different methods to get that content to your television). A streaming app is just another way to deliver television to you. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving Lower Decks Page

I don't think this is controversial, but I figured I would mention this redirect here Talk:Lower_Decks#Requested_move_6_August_2020 Oldag07 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Add Actor Aron Eisenberg in table

ADD Actor "Aron Eisenberg"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Eisenberg) as recurring role "Nog" in Deep Space Nine, and Guest character "Kar" in Voyager

Actually: NOG could be considered a MAIN character if Jake Sisko is also a main. Many recurring but vital characters are missing from the table that were vital to DS9. The Grand Nagus / Gul Dukat / Kai Winn / Chancellor Gowron are just top of mind.

HansDeLeenheer (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether someone is a "main" character depends on whether they get opening-credits billing, not how many episodes they appear in or how vital they are to the story. AJD (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Spin off Shared Cast section

I am thinking about creating a Shared Cast in Star Trek template and moving the shared class section into that page. Then I could use the same shared cast section on this page, Star Trek crossovers. I thought about also added this chart to List of Star Trek production staff but it seems like the more appropriate thing would be to remove the cast section of that page and to add that to the shared cast section as well. Thoughts Oldag07 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Could work if it is done correctly. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems too big for a simple template. I spun it off into a draft page. Draft:List of Star Trek cast members. Feedback is appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Changed title to better reflect proposal Oldag07 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Revived Discussion Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious how you distinguish between Main and Co-Star? Do the credits actually use the term "co-star"? Sundayclose (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure. I am trying to move off the current chart off this main page. It is huge. Here is my draft. Draft:List of Star Trek cast members Oldag07 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the table was originally added by TVBuff90 here. Let's see if that editor responds. Sundayclose (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
No response, so I suggest changing all co-star designations to main cast. There's no basis for stating that Doohan, Nichols, Takei, and Barrett are co-stars rather than main cast. Sundayclose (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Those actors were credited as Co-Stars for the entire run of the Original Series. Rdzogschen (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rdzogschen: I don't have access to TOS. Exactly how were they credited as co-stars? I've seen every episode and I don't remember seeing the word co-star. The names just appeared in the credits. Sundayclose (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The only "Starring" credit was William Shatner's. Nimoy and Kelly received "Also starring" credit. The remaining actors were credited as co-stars in the end titles, but not every episode they appeared in. I believe the co-star distinction was made because Doohan, Takei, and the others, were actually contract players for Desilu (later Paramount Television). They routinely appeared in other television series also produced by Desilu But, I could be wrong, of course… Rdzogschen (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we spin this section off or not? Oldag07 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe so… Rdzogschen (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
How about spinning it off into a template and then placing it on here? Oldag07 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I think any discussion of how the shared cast is structured should be influenced by how the wiki is structured under other franchises and continuities with an equivalent complexity. There should be a prevailing theme that sets the standard for how cast & character cross overs are documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.112.131 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Discovery Netflix access

"Netflix distributes the series worldwide, except for Canada." This sentence is inaccurate- Discovery is not on Netflix in the United States either. Prcc27 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

For the TOS cast members section, a regular bridge crew memeber was Yeoman Janice Rand, played by Grace Lee Whitney. She was also in 3 of the Feature films, and deserves a mention.

...

"add * Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand"

Jat0307 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ericfood (talk | contribs) 15:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (2)

In the cast members section on TNG, pleace change to "Sir" Patrick Stewart, as he was knighted in 2010 by Queen Elizabeth II for services to drama. The prefix is used with the holder's given name or full name as the proper honorific.

"change Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard to Sir Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard" Jat0307 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Per, MOS:HONORIFIC, not appropriate in this context. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Books / PocketBooks

Please add Laurence Yep to list of contributing authors in the paragraph about Star Trek PocketBooks. His book was Shadow Lord, published in 1985. JinnieT (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Communism section

It seems like this wording has been here since 2016.

"Additionally, some contend that the Star Trek society resembles communism."

It seems to have been added with these two edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=745770481 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=745209708

I am not sure about the first source, but the second source seems to be a valid source. However, the wording does not belong in a section discussing technology. If this phrasing belongs in this article it belongs in the "Conception and setting" section. As for now, I removed it with this edit simply because the phrasing does not flow with the paragraph that it is presently in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&type=revision&diff=1052472935&oldid=1052398975

It is kind of surprising that a sentence that is so out of place in this article has lasted so long. Whether or not we keep a version of this sentence in this article, this incident suggests that we need some thorough copyediting of this article. Oldag07 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean it isn't wrong. A society that is a utopia that runs on equal footing for all people regardless of status, background, or wealth that runs without money is essentially the model that communism targets. Whether it is out of place in the article or has improper citation is a completely separate point. Ckruschke (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph in context:

...Later, the introductory sequence to Star Trek: Enterprise included footage of this shuttle which, along with images of a naval sailing vessel called Enterprise, depicted the advancement of human transportation technology. Additionally, some contend that the Star Trek society resembles communism.[126][127]

Beyond Star Trek's fictional innovations, its contributions to television history included a multicultural and multiracial cast. ...

I am trying to assume good faith. But, I am having difficulties understanding why that sentence was put in that location.

As for if communism belongs on this page, yes, Star Trek portrays a society that is similar to Karl Marx's original vision of communism. However, the word communism has connotations that don't match Marx's original vision. Most of the countries that have called themselves "communist" have been brutal totalitarian dictatorships. The largest country that calls itself "communist", China, has adopted an economic system that could be described as capitalist. These connotations matter. As such, if you were to base the word communism on the totalitarian dictatorship definition of communism, then Star Trek advocates the opposite. Note, that Marjorie Taylor Greene has gone around stating that we are living with "corporate communism" [1].

So, should we discuss how Star Trek portrays a communist society, we should add a lot of addendums. Not just, "Star Trek society resembles communism." For an article that is supposed to be written as a broad overview, do a few sentences talking about how Star Trek is like "communism", but not like "communism" improve this page? Possibly a discussion the topic belongs on a "Philosophy of Star Trek" page but not here. If I am assuming good faith, the sentence wasn't put on this page with much thought. That is not a reason to keep the sentence. However, if I don't assume good faith, which there seems to be a lot of evidence for that, one could argue this was put there as a way to put something inflammatory about Star Trek on its Wikipedia page. Thus that sentence definitely doesn't belong here. Oldag07 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Shared Cast section

I got voted down the last time I tried to spin the shared cast section. The list, especially with all the new characters coming is a bit unwieldy and slow to edit even with the source editor. The page as of this posting is 162,780 bytes. Looking at WP:SPLIT, pages that are "> 100kB/100,000 chars" should "Almost certainly should be divided". I can imagine when reading this article, that people will see the chart and move on to a different article. Is it more important to know which actor played Spock in which series, or is more important that readers read about the real-world cultural impact of Star Trek?

I still advocate splitting the page off. However, for now, I put the table in a collapsable box. And I moved the section to the bottom of the article. Oldag07 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved Shared Cast Table to List of Star Trek characters. No one seemed to be complain with the shared cast section being placed in a collapsable box. This page is way too big as is. Oldag07 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

cultigenic

@Phlip2005: Basic google search

cultigenic: "relating to cultigen"
cultigen: "a plant species or variety known only in cultivation, especially one with no known wild ancestor"

DonQuixote (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

In section "The Original Series Era" Add note that Desilu Productions was owned and managed at the time by Lucille Ball. If you are not aware that Desilu was Ball's studio it would be easy to overlook how one of the most powerful women in Hollywood at the time helped make Star Trek a reality. Bonnysweetrobin (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: While after performing a cursory look at Lucille Ball and Desilu Productions I find this to be true (which is certainly a nice fun fact, and reminded me that I Love Lucy exists, which was a nostalgic treat), I'm not certain it is relevant enough for us to go out of our way to point it out in the Star Trek article. Another editor is free to perform this request should they disagree with me, though. You are also free to perform the edit yourself by meeting the criteria for being made automatically confirmed, which will allow you to edit semi-protected articles. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Lucille Ball not only was the head of the studio but was personally responsible for the decision to produce Star Trek; this is mentioned in the article Star Trek: The Original Series and rates a mention here; I'll add it. AJD (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

"change Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will be released in 2022 to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds was released on May 5th, 2022" . Also the corrected sentence should be moved down in the paragraph to make it chronologically correct. 2601:484:C200:B27:C0DE:D669:E84A:1B5 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉️] 01:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Franchise official title (revisted) 2022

This topic has come up previously, but I would once again like to question why we are not calling this franchise by it's current name (i.e.: Star Trek Universe). It has been titled this by the distribution/owning company. As it is categorized/listed as such in various reliable articles, and categorized as such by the company that owns the IP, for what reasons have we continued to ignore it?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well because Wikipedia goes by common names I guess? People call the franchise the Star Trek franchise, not the Star Trek Universe franchise; the names of the series and films in it are things like Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: First Contact, not Star Trek Universe: Discovery and Star Trek Universe: First Contact; Simon and Schuster publishes Star Trek books; etc. If we had an article titled Star Trek Universe, it should be about the universe the franchise takes place in, not the franchise itself. AJD (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people (especially non-fans) call it a franchise. others (many fans) find the term franchise denigrating and offensive. Please stop using it where other words will work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Who possibly finds the word “franchise” denigrating and offensive? Rcarter555 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No one I know. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

If the following can be confirmed, it could be added to the Cultural Impact section:-

Apparently, when Star Trek was first aired in 1966, the use of the split infinitive in the phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before" was regarded as bad English Grammar. The correct wording at that time should have been "to go boldly where no man has gone before". However, during the course of time, the phrase was repeated so many times over the years that by the end of the 20th century, the use of the split infinitive became acceptable in English Grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk • contribs)

You need to cite a reliable source stating anything like the above. Although, it's highly unlikely. See our own article on split infinitive. DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
reliable source required 1he0r0c1e10 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Coloured lines

Re-posting this here as have not got any responses over at List of Star Trek films and the same questions apply here:

I am assuming that the coloured lines we are using in the film table have been around for a long time but was wondering if anyone knows the decision making behind them? I personally feel that if there is going to be coloured lines used to differentiate the sub-franchises then yellow for TOS and blue for TNG would make more sense, but I also know that we tend to avoid using colours like this for film articles. If no one knows how these colours came to be then I would recommend we remove them or have a discussion about using more logical colours and in a more consistent way. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

All I can offer is: I, too, have been "around for a long time," and I have no knowledge of the origin, decision-making, or reason behind the lines. I don't spend a lot of time outside my nerd corners of Wikipedia, but I don't think I've seen other instances of that kind of signposting in tables. My knee-jerk inclination is to remove the lines. For one, they're perhaps not universally accessible to all readers. For second, in the contexts where they're used -- awards, reception, etc. -- that type of signposting really doesn't seem to me to offer value. If there is merit or significance to point out, e.g. "The TNG movies controlling for inflation were never as successful as the TOS ones" (i.e. to draw a comparison between films spawning from a TV series), it's better delivered in written text. And there's some haziness as always on Generations, which straddles "base franchises." Anyhow, my two slips of latinum. --EEMIV (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Remove Short Treks and Very Short Treks from the table in the Television Series section, and add them to a new table in the Television Shorts section. McEngland (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a table with only 2 entries is a good idea, no. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
It just seems odd to me to have them in a table in one section, while their descriptions are in a different section, but I understand that so short a table would also be odd. Perhaps there's another solution? McEngland (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the solution is to move the description of Short Treks and Very Short Treks into the same section as the rest of the series. Rcarter555 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The audio version of this article is way out of date

The audio version of this article is from January 2010! Someone needs to update this as soon as possible - so much has changed since then. MisterZed (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

reliable source required 1he0r0c1e10 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've responded in this manner; what does sourcing have to do with MisterZed (talk · contribs)'s request? In any event, it looks like information regarding audio versions of articles can be found here: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Trimming the "Expansion of the Star Trek Universe" section

History sections are particularly difficult to write on wikipedia, especially with a subject that is being changed constantly. There seems to be a lot of speculation in the final section. Sourced correctly, the section seems a bit bloated. I think we can trim out these sections completely. They seem speculative...

"The service's Executive Vice President of Development and Programming, Julie McNamara, said they were unlikely to expand the slate of Star Trek series until one of these five shows ended, which could happen when a series' story runs its course or a lead actor's contract expires. McNamara hoped to release a new season of Star Trek each quarter. Discussing the next phase of the franchise, Kurtzman said several projects were in development. He feels there would be opportunities for future series to be associated to other Paramount Global brands such as BET and Showtime, similar to Prodigy being developed for Nickelodeon. Monthly meetings with the showrunners of each new series are held to allow coordination between the different series and ensure that "they're not stepping on each other's toes" by using the same elements of the universe, according to Kurtzman."

"In October 2020, Kurtzman stated that Star Trek series have been planned through 2027. Kurtzman cautioned that this was a preliminary plan, but it was necessary to plan so far out due to the long production schedules for each series." Oldag07 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There have been no comments on this for about a month. I am going to remove the content, but I certainly would not fight adding it back if anyone has objections. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=1193798753 Oldag07 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Lets also note that Paramounts financial position, there is good reason to believe that Star Trek plans that aren't officially announced have been trimmed. Oldag07 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing Unannounced Movies

Do we really need to talk about movies that may or may not be produced in the future. Paramount's financial situation is very precarious. I don't think any of these plans are concrete. This page needs a bit of a trim. Oldag07 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved unannounced films to film page. Oldag07 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This was a strange and trivial change. Film productions frequently take years of development before they are produced. Furthermore, Paramount detailed/clarified that none of their announced films are cancelled -- confirming that they are still in development. Where exactly did you move the details User:Oldag07?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, I appreciate your contributions. While you do have sources for these, the primary Star Trek page is already 176,224 bytes, nearing the WP:SIZERULE. We are currently discussing the removal of individual sections for each series on this page, with information being moved to List of Star Trek films. Studios typically have several scripts in development simultaneously for potential movies, and while they may not officially cancel them, it's not practical to include speculative scripts for every potential future Star Trek movie on a page meant to provide an overview of the franchise's history, including TV series, films, books, cultural impact, and merchandise. Pages like Development of Star Trek 4 and List of Star Trek films already cover much of this. Star Trek has only produced three films in the last two decades; expecting six more in the next decade seems unrealistic. Even Star Wars hasn't been that productive. Additionally, Paramount's ongoing acquisition talks add uncertainty to the franchise's future [[2]].

Look at the state of some of the future Star Trek films that currently are on this page:

  • The Mark L. Smith film was cancelled [[3]].
  • The Noah Hawley film was placed on hold by Paramount Pictures president Emma Watts source, current page, who took the franchise in a different direction.
  • The Clarkson film was cancelled [[4]].

Is this page, already bloated as it is, really need more information about speculative films? A good compromise could be to compress all the bullet points into a single paragraph, except for the section 31 film, which has been greenlit and is in production. Oldag07 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed the films that have questionable interpretation of sources:

* https://variety.com/2024/tv/features/star-trek-future-starfleet-academy-section-31-michelle-yeoh-1235952301/
"Should “Section 31” prove successful, Yeoh says she’s game for a sequel. And Kurtzman is already eyeing more opportunities for TV movies, including a possible follow-up to “Picard.”"
https://trekmovie.com/2024/01/05/patrick-stewart-reveals-new-star-trek-movie-script-featuring-jean-luc-picard-is-in-the-works/ There is nothing in this source that states that anything is firm.

See WP:RUMOR Oldag07 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone further and removed the whole future section, this information is already detailed appropriately at List of Star Trek films and does not need to be duplicated here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
As long as its detailed somewhere, whether in pros or bullets -- the average reader (who isn't a Star Trek fan) could benefit from reading the various scripts the studio has written. Furthermore, as I had stated before -- the studio clarified that none of the projects had been cancelled. This seems to override The Guardian, Geek Tyrant (side-note is this even a reliable source?), and Variety. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving episode ratings section

If we are moving individual sections for each of the shows, something I agree with, we should also move the top ten episodes section. I don't think it is controverial, so i will do so now. Oldag07 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Moved to the lists of Star Trek episodes page. I am not sure that is the best location. I am hesitant to create a whole new page of episode ratings. I am not sure if such a page would survive an AFD proposal. Oldag07 (talk)
I am unsure whether the information should be included anywhere, but perhaps List of Star Trek television series#Critical response is more appropriate than the current location? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I am hesitant to remove information outright. i am more of an advocate to spin the information off into sunpages. After looking very hard for a better location, the list of Star Trek television series seems the best out of a lot of not so great options. Oldag07 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek/Archive_9&oldid=1252665601"