Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
{{rewrite|Star Trek/temp}} |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=7}} |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek]] |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
--------- |
|||
|action1=RBP |
|||
|action1date=10:24, 19 January 2004 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture#Film.2C TV and radio |
|||
|action1result=kept |
|||
|action1oldid=2189970 |
|||
|action2=FAR |
|||
Previous discussions have been archived to keep the size of this page down. |
|||
|action2date=20:48, 26 March 2005 |
|||
:[[/Archive1]] [[/Archive2]] [[/Archive3]] [[/Archive4]] [[/Archive5]] [[/Archive6]] [[/Archive7]] [[/Archive8]] [[/Archive9]] |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Star Trek |
|||
|action2result=demoted |
|||
|action2oldid=11560854 |
|||
|action3=AFD |
|||
== Star Trek Inconsistancies == |
|||
|action3date=11:40, 6 June 2006 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek |
|||
|action3result=kept |
|||
|action3oldid=57162750 |
|||
|action4=GAN |
|||
Hmm... I don't see this around... --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 12:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action4date=04:35, 19 June 2006 |
|||
: I'm not too sure what you're asking here ... ;-) [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 17:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action4link=Talk:Star Trek/Archive 2#Failed GA |
|||
:: 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. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 19:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action4result=failed |
|||
|action4oldid=59279859 |
|||
|action5=PR |
|||
== Condensing/reorganizing article == |
|||
|action5date=00:37, 8 July 2006 |
|||
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: |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek/archive1 |
|||
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: |
|||
|action5result=reviewed |
|||
*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. |
|||
|action5oldid=62613689 |
|||
*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. ;-) |
|||
[[User:Roger McCoy|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! [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 16:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action6=PR |
|||
: 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. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 17:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action6date=12:03, 30 November 2006 |
|||
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek/archive2 |
|||
|action6result=reviewed |
|||
|action6oldid=91039890 |
|||
|action7=GAN |
|||
:: A summary of the new article, like a paragraph should be placed back into the main article. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 12:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action7date=October 18, 2007 |
|||
|action7link=Talk:Star Trek/Archive 6#GA Review |
|||
|action7result=Failed |
|||
|action7oldid=165281874 |
|||
|action8=PR |
|||
==Recent Voyager section edit/revert== |
|||
|action8date=19:23, 12 July 2009 |
|||
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. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek/archive3 |
|||
: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. --[[User:Josquius|Josquius]] 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action8result=reviewed |
|||
:: 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. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|action8oldid=301731305 |
|||
|action9=GAN |
|||
|action9date= 22:01, 11 September 2012 |
|||
|action9link=Talk:Star_Trek/GA1 |
|||
|action9result=passed |
|||
|action9oldid=511920565 |
|||
|topic= television |
|||
|maindate=May 22, 2004 |
|||
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: |
|||
|currentstatus=GA |
|||
*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? |
|||
- [[User:Brian Kendig|Brian Kendig]] 19:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
|otd1date=2012-09-08 |
|||
: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. |
|||
|otd1oldid=511192795 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Star Trek|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid |USTV=yes |USTV-importance=high |listas=Star Trek}} |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- important Americana --> |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Star Trek/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|counter = 9 |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
== Removing Unannounced Movies == |
|||
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'--[[User:Josquius|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! [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If you want to say that some fans think this or some fans think that, you need to include sources.[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|Avoid weasel terms]] [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 07:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Moved unannounced films to film page. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 14:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Exception (as stated on WP:AWT): |
|||
:: 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]]?--[[User:DisneyMetalhead|DisneyMetalhead]] ([[User talk:DisneyMetalhead|talk]]) 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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.) |
|||
[[User:DisneyMetalhead|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 [[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/business/dealbook/apollo-global-management-paramount.html]]. |
|||
:How exactly does one quote "half" the fan-base of something like Star Trek......and do it a second time for the opposing side? [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 08:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Look at the state of some of the future Star Trek films that currently are on this page: |
|||
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. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 16:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* The Mark L. Smith film was cancelled [[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/22/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-mark-l-smith-week-in-geek#:~:text=Writer%20Mark%20L%20Smith%2C%20who,go%20hard%2C%E2%80%9D%20revealed%20Smith.]]. |
|||
==Year in film== |
|||
* 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. |
|||
It is my understanding that the standard is not to use piped "year in ''x''" links. [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards]] corroborates this: |
|||
* The Clarkson film was cancelled [[https://collider.com/sj-clarkson-star-trek-movie/]]. |
|||
:Don't use [[piped link]]s to the "year in music" articles (i.e. do not write "[[the Beatles]] released ''[[Please Please Me]]'' in [[1963 in music|1963]]"). Instead, link to the normal year article ([[1963]]) and, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as "[[The Beatles]] released ''[[Please Please Me]]'' in [[1963]] (see [[1963 in music]])". |
|||
So this is why I deleted the "xxxx in film" links. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 08:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 12:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Well: |
|||
# That's music not films |
|||
# Like every guideline on WP, it's not mandatory |
|||
# Care to finish what you quoted? |
|||
Removed the films that have questionable interpretation of sources: |
|||
:: In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the year in music articles. |
|||
* Mark L Smith film has been cancelled. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/22/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-mark-l-smith-week-in-geek |
|||
* Noah Hawley Film has been cancelled https://geektyrant.com/news/noah-hawley-explains-how-his-star-trek-movie-fell-apart-due-to-stupid-hollywood-executives#:~:text=Fargo%20and%20Legion%20creator%20Noah,still%20in%20this%20insane%20mindset. |
|||
* Vazquez - Source does not mention Vazquez. Film was suppposed to be released in 2023 |
|||
* Picard film: |
|||
: * 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]] |
|||
Which says to me that non-piped links are acceptable in place of piped links, and I would call a listing of movies equivalent to a discography. My arguments are precisely the opposite as voiced there: the year article is only one click away from "xxxx in film" [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
While I agree with the year in music examples (and it is in fact done that way in the individual Star Trek movie articles, for example: '''''Star Trek: The Motion Picture''''' (Paramount Pictures, [[1979]]; see also [[1979 in film]])), I could go either way in regards to the table in the [[Star Trek]] article; the rationale doesn't exactly apply to this. I'd tend to prefer to leave it as it was. [[User:Commander|Commander]] |
|||
:The more I think about it, those years could be removed entirely; the information is redundant and is found by clicking the individual movie links. Either that, or move the year after the movie title, place it in parenthesis, and make it a link to the year only. So instead of * [[1979 in film|1979]]: ''[[Star Trek: The Motion Picture]]'', make it * ''[[Star Trek: The Motion Picture]]'' ([[1979]]). I prefer the latter as it would be more consistent with how the television series are listed above. Comments please. [[User:Commander|Commander]] 08:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Another point, creating a consistency of style between the television series and movie sections of the article seems like one step in the direction of regaining featured article status (including expanding each movie into a subheading, with synopsis information below). [[User:Commander|Commander]] 08:58, Mar 15, 2005 (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!--[[User:DisneyMetalhead|DisneyMetalhead]] ([[User talk:DisneyMetalhead|talk]]) 16:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== End or Legacy of Star Trek == |
|||
* DisneyMetalhead you have done some great work. We appreciate it. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Will Star Trek end and be a forgotten memory that is completely buried in history? - [[User:John-1107|John-1107]] |
|||
== Redundant list of TV shows == |
|||
:Talk pages now the forum for philosophical discussions? :) [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 02:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Do we still need a section for all the series when there is a whole article that already does that at [[List of Star Trek television series]]? Feels like this is just leftover from before that article was created and was never cleaned-up. I propose we remove those sections and just have the overview table like we do for the films. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 12:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Forgotten memory? No. Not for years to come. After all, several of the shows were engineered and designed to air for syndication. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 08:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm willing to be swayed by other editors, but it does seem a bit redundant, and creates more work when updates are needed. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think even if no new series or movies are produced, there will still be continuous re-runs, new novels and other merchandise. Avid fans will still attend conferences and new generations will discover Star Trek for themselves when they see the repeats, just like TOS has been repeated over the decades. I think Star Trek will stay with us for a long time yet! [[User:Marky1981|Marky1981]] 00:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: I can get behind this. Perhaps we can compress these into three major sections: |
|||
But what we don't know is will there be any new Star Trek movies or shows instead of syndication? - [[User:John-1107|John-1107]] |
|||
* Broadcast series TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT |
|||
: Well, we know that a Trek XI is in the planning stages, but whether it actually goes anywhere has yet to be seen. The fact Rick Berman is involved will turn a lot of people off simply out of principle (so much for IDIC). My personal view on this subject is more along the lines of: when Star Trek comes back, will it be the same as the Star Trek we all grew up with? Like it or lump it, ENT was part of Roddenberry's universe, as was Voyager and the rest. With reboots and reimaginings under way in other franchises (Battlestar Galactica, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, pretty much every long-running comic book series, and most recently James Bond) I feel the temptation is very great for Paramount to do the same thing, and IMO a "regime change" will most certainly result in something that won't resemble what Roddenberry created. I can see the signs now: people want Star Trek to become a clone of BSG, of Firefly, of Farscape ... but by doing so, Trek will simply become, well, a clone of etc etc etc. In answer to the original question, there is simply too much Star Trek for it become forgotten. But I do feel that the final episode of Enterprise in May and *maybe* Trek XI will serve as epilogues to the franchise and the continuity that was created waaaay back in 1964 when The Cage was filmed. After that we may see Star Trek 2.0 and, hey, it might be good and it might be popular. But it won't be the same. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Streaming: DIS, PIC, SNW, Academy |
|||
* Animated: TAS, Lower Decks, Prodigy |
|||
[[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) |
|||
:That would seem to draw a false distinction between the animated shows and the other two categories (especially since Lower Decks at least is a streaming show as well)? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I have suggested some alternate ideas for splitting up the list of TV shows at [[Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series]]. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would think the most logical divide would be Animated and Live Action. Isn't that the standard division in most media articles? [[User:Digital Jedi Master|——Digital Jedi Master]] ([[User talk:Digital Jedi Master|talk]]) 00:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I feel that would be more arbitrary than some of the other suggestions, the three animated shows don't have much to do with one another. I think broadcast and streaming would make more sense because it keeps all the Kurtzman-era shows together. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have removed the redundant sections but did not split the TV shows into sections yet, waiting for clearer consensus on the best direction for that. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Broadcast and streaming sounds fine to me. [[User:SonOfThornhill|SonOfThornhill]] ([[User talk:SonOfThornhill|talk]]) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have moved this part of the discussion to [[Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series]]. I think it is better to keep it one place. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 12:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As long as there's are the same details and a similar layout on the List of Star Trek television series article, this doesn't seem controversial.--[[User:DisneyMetalhead|DisneyMetalhead]] ([[User talk:DisneyMetalhead|talk]]) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Optimism = POV== |
|||
:: Nice, the page is 122,190 bytes as of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=1221350646 this edit]. This article hasn't been this slim since 3 September 2019. That is the year of discovery's first season. This is with a bunch of new content. Keep up the good work. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:AlistairMcMillan| AlistairMcMillan]] just undid my edit. I think it should be discussed here. |
|||
==Moving episode ratings section== |
|||
The article stated that Trek is an optimistic view of the future. Alistair says in his edit notes "It is incredibly well documented that Star Trek presents an optimistic vision of the future. That is not POV." |
|||
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. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk: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? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|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. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 12:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Proposal to move the List of Star Trek episodes into the List of Star Trek lists== |
|||
Optimism is an opinion and by its nature takes a position that one condition is preferable to another. It is not neutral and therefore it biases the article. |
|||
A proposal has been made to move the List of Star Trek episodes page into the List of Star Trek lists. [[Talk:List of Star Trek lists#Merge proposal|Discussion]] [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Merged [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Gene Roddenberry]] had an "incredibly well documented" history as a secular humanist. He believed that mankind is capable of solving all of its problems without intervention from a higher power. This is a major theme in Trek and is definitely POV. To say that Trek is a [[secular humanism|secular humanistic]] view is much more accurate.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 00:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:While it's hard to believe that anyone would think that sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare are good things, "optimistic" '''is''' POV. Furthermore, secular humanism describes it perfectly, and Gene Roddenberry was indeed a secular humanist. [[User:Commander|Commander]] 01:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
If Gene was a "well documented "secular humanist" then would you mind listing a source or two here, because I seem to have failed to pick up on that fact. |
|||
I based my edit, mostly on memory and a little Google search: |
|||
* ZERO results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+%22secular+humanist%22 |
|||
* 8 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+secular that all relate to particular episode storylines |
|||
* 2 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+humanist |
|||
** one a bio of Julian Bashir |
|||
** the other.. Gene's son talking about his Gene "Later in life he was a "humanist" if you wanted to title it anything." Which doesn't sound very commital to me. |
|||
* 23 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+%22optimistic%22 |
|||
** From an article introducing Star Trek, "Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future..." |
|||
** From a convention summary: "...remind people of Gene Roddenberry's optimistic, forward-looking philosophy." |
|||
** From an article on Nazis in Trek: "Even in the optimistic future of Star Trek..." |
|||
** From a quote from an assistant professor of marketing at Northwestern University: "Star Trek actually portrays a very violent, warlike future, but, rooted in the 'flower power' sixties, it is also ultimately utopian and optimistic." |
|||
I could go on, but you can check for yourself. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 05:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Your results are not from encyclopedias and are therfore not necessarily NPOV. For evidence on the secular humanism, you could start at wikipedia with the [[Gene Roddenberry]] and [[Secular humanism]] articles. Just because Star Trek has never been described in a NPOV manner as secular humanist, doesn't make it incorrect. [[User:Commander|Commander]] 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
You are right about the Gene == humanist thing. Funny I never picked up on that before. Anyway... |
|||
I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV thing. We are supposed to avoid adding our own POV. We can report other people's POV. For example you can't say in an article "Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far" but you can say "Dan Curry thinks Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far [http://www.trektoday.com/news/010305_01.shtml]". |
|||
The dispute here isn't whether "optimistic" or "secular humanist" are NPOV or not. The point is whether the series are identified as "optimistic" or "secular humanist" most often. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 05:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: The core of the matter is whether optimism is a POV. I thought this was self-evident. Nevertheless, a look at the article of [[optimism]] says in part (italics mine): "Optimism, the opposite of pessimism, is a ''lifeview'' where one looks upon the world as a positive place. Optimists generally ''believe'' that people are inherently good. They have a "positive" ''outlook'' on life, believing that given time, things will work out in the end." If that does not describe a POV, I must be missing something. |
|||
: Secular humanism arises because I did not wish to delete optimism without replacing it was something suitably descriptive. Does Star Trek have a viewpoint? I think it does. Secular humanism fits the bill and is in line with the personal viewpoint of Trek's creator.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 13:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: Secular humanism denotes a religious attitude that IMO is not related to whether or not Star Trek is "optimistic". It has been well documented that Roddenberry's view of his universe is that it be optimistic. This is why Deep Space Nine - the darkest of the Trek series - remains controversial among Trek fans, and why many were upset by the creation of Section 31. |
|||
:: There is some discussion to be had regarding Star Trek's non-religious view (very rarely is religion addressed and we hardly ever see references to earth religions) and IMO that is where a dicussion of "secular humanism" would be more appropriate. BTW the term "humanism" cannot be applied to Star Trek in any event because many of its characters are not human, and to do so would contradict the spirit of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" in which the use of a similar term is actually described as racist. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: Does Trek have a viewpoint? Yes. How can we describe what viewpoint Trek represents without it being POV? THAT is the crux of the matter. |
|||
::: It depicts a world (a galaxy), where man (and eventually other species representing aspects of humanity) overcome their problems without help from higher (divine) sources. It presents this as something viable and realistic. That is Roddenberry's opinion. Is that optimistic? Depends on your POV. |
|||
::: [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] must've thought that the [[Third Reich]] was optimistic. Do we care? Not really. His POV should not affect the Third Reich article. Just as Roddenberry's POV should not affect the Trek article. |
|||
::: As far as the SH term being racist, that would only be applicable if it were used within the context of the story. We are viewers in the "real world" where SH is a practical term.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 14:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
"man overcome their problems without help from higher sources" Is that all that Star Trek is about? Is that even a central theme in Star Trek? I don't think so. |
|||
The sentence you are trying to edit goes on to say "...humankind has overcome sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare on Earth; the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding." Nothing to do with religion. And unless you can find someone who thinks that that is a pessimistic or negative vision of the future, I think "optimistic" is the obvious word that fits here. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Man can overcome their problems. Is that a central theme of Trek? Absolutely. Fact. |
|||
: How do they do so? Through their own ingenuity. What is this called? Secular humanism. Fact. |
|||
: Is the Trek future a desirable one? You say yes. You are an optimist in this context. Fact. |
|||
: Does coloring a reference work with opinions inform the reader in an unbiased manner? No. It loses credibility as an authority because it promotes an agenda.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Peace and understanding == |
|||
[[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] brings up something I was getting around to anyway when he says: "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding." |
|||
I object to this. Was the Federation helping spread peace by defying the Dominion's claim to sovereignty in the Gamma Quadrant? |
|||
Trek has a Human-centric (even a [[Westernisation|Western-centric]]) POV and very often promotes the idea that Humans have all the answers and everyone should be like them. The Ferengi turned democratic. Archer told the Andorians and the Tellarites that they should start acting Human. The Klingons eventually join the Federation. The Federation imposes its ideals on everyone they meet. That is the real "understanding" promoted. [[Michael Eddington]] was right. --[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Sheesh. I should quote this as a prime example of "taking science fiction too seriously" and add it with the crowds of people that put [[The Day After Tomorrow]] down because the story was implausible. Funny how some just.....just ignore that whole fiction bit in "science fiction." [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 18:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: If one doesn't care about the [[integrity]] of a given subject, why bother? If we're going to do something, it should be done correctly.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 19:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: The problem is that you'll find most, if not all, things will contradict itself. Here's a simple litmus test that I *just* made up: |
|||
:::* Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote violent and irrational actions to commit genocide or anything not resembling peace? |
|||
:::* Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote division of peoples because of differences? |
|||
:::I have to quickly, and unequivocally, answer "No" to both of those questions. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 20:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Distilling your test while attempting to preserve the meaning of the questions: |
|||
:::: 1) Does the [[United Federation of Planets|Federation]] promote anything not resembling peace? |
|||
::::: The Federation has been interpreted by fans/writers to represent the [[United States]] and/or the [[United Nations]]. It is not a [[American Empire|universal opinion]] that these organizations are bastions of peace and understanding. Mind you, I am not taking sides. |
|||
::::: Indeed, according to Wikipedia's article on [[peace]], there is a measure of controversy and nuance inherent in the term. |
|||
::::: Likewise, to say that the Federation's ideals promote understanding implies [[compromise]]; yielding. That is not entirely accurate. |
|||
:::: 2) Does the Federation promote division of peoples because of differences? |
|||
::::: No, but do they promote unity on the basis of equality? If the Federation is presented as being superior ('our heroes', as it were), unity is achieved only when antagonists admit their error and acquiesce to the protagonist. That is not understanding and does not seem to me to be true peace.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 00:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Firstly, you did *NOT* maintain the meaning of the questions. Promoting violence is *NOT* not peace. Promotion of division is *NOT* not promoting unity. They are very grey terms and the wording of the terms is not intended to be negated such as you've done. |
|||
::::::Secondly, of course ST has a US bias.....it's MADE in the US. I certainly hope you are not expecting ST to cast Russians or Indians. As such, it is much more likely to be US-centric and influenced by american culture. |
|||
::::::Finally, you haven't even come close to convincing me of why "while helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: "Peace and understanding" are "very grey terms". That's what I'm getting at. |
|||
::::::: Star Trek "has a US bias". Bingo. "While helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable because it is United States-POV. Why not say that "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading ''[[Westernisation|western ideals]]''."? Wouldn't that be accurate and NPOV?--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 14:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: So you're saying western ideals do not include peace and understanding. And, no, it's not more accurate. I don't recall ST ever having fast food, nor anything resembling materialism. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 15:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: I'm saying western concepts of peace and understanding are a matter of opinion. |
|||
::::::::: Perhaps "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading [[Westernisation|western views]] of peace and understanding." |
|||
::::::::: I want to acknowledge the belief that Trek displays these concepts while stating that it is biased toward a POV. |
|||
::::::::: As far as fast food and materialism, I do not claim that the Federation corresponds equally to the US in every aspect. The ideals in question are those on peace and understanding.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: In the end, the "peace and understanding" are defined in canon of the show. There is no need to qualify it to anything else. They won't match western ideals and, as such, would be completely inaccurate to say they are. |
|||
:::::::::: If you want a "forum" to expound upon what ST stands for then start [[Star Trek ideals]] or [[Star Trek culture]] or something. But you best not make it about just your views of what "peace and understanding" mean. For example, the very low-key of materialism of Federation and the complete materialistic culture of Ferengi; Klingons' jump to violence (much more so in Enterprise than the other series); etc. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 19:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I believe I was the one who added the "helping to spread peace and understanding" bit to the article originally. I used those words because I can remember countless times in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (and even a few times in ENT) when Our Heroes resolved a conflict with diplomacy rather than phasers, and emphasized unity and cooperation instead of subterfuge and aggression. TNG in particular had more than its fair share of episodes where Picard mediated between warring races. In the Trek of more recent years, these issues have taken on more shades of grey, but I'd still say they're the rule more than the exception. Peace and understanding are imprecise terms, yes, but that's okay because Star Trek has represented these ideals in lots of ways. - [[User:Brian Kendig|Brian Kendig]] 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Having just watched the TNG episode [[Silicon Avatar]], here's a quote regarding the destruction of the crystalline entity: |
|||
:Doctor: I don't understand, why are we pursuing the entity if not to destroy it? |
|||
:Picard: We're not hunters, Doctor, nor is it our role to exact revenge. |
|||
:D:: What do you propose? We track it down, greet it warmly, ask if it would mind terribly not ravaging other planets? |
|||
:P: I don't deny that it may be necessary to fire on it, but I look on that as a last resort. |
|||
:D: Why? Why not just kill it? |
|||
:P: I want to try and communicate with it. |
|||
:D: What? |
|||
:P: We know from our own experience that our shields will protect us, so long as we're in no danger, I will make every effort to communicate. |
|||
:D: To what end? |
|||
:P: If we can determine what it's needs are, we might find other sources to supply it. |
|||
:D: It's needs are to slaughter people by the thousands. It is nothing but a giant killing machine. |
|||
:P: Doctor, the sperm whale on Earth devoures millions of cuttlefish as it roams the oceans. It is not evil — it is feeding. The same may be true of the entity. |
|||
:D: That would be small comfort for those who have died. Defeat it. We're not talking cuttlefish, we're talking about people |
|||
:P: I would argue that the crystalline entity has as much right to be here as we do. |
|||
Sounds like peace and understanding to me. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 08:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Request for Vulcan comment== |
|||
There's a question regarding Spock on [[Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek)]] for those who wish to contribute.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Fan-made productions == |
|||
I think they deserve their own article. [[Star Trek fan productions]] perhaps? [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 00:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't know if they need a separate article since they are covered in [[Star Trek other storylines]] already, so perhaps that article could be expanded instead? [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah, didn't look there. And it's [[Star Trek, other storylines]] for the record. :) |
|||
::I propose they be deleted from [[Star Trek]] and the most notable ones (I have no clue which are) under [[Star Trek#Other storylines]]. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 18:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Movie summaries == |
|||
I think the movies section should be broken down into short summaries just like what is done for the series. Objections/thoughts? [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 18:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: As long as they don't duplicate too much of what is in the separate film articles, I have no objection. BTW how long doe it take for the powers that be to make a decision regarding Featured Article status? That ominious "candidate for removal" notice has been up there for weeks. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Duplication only to the extent that the series does. A quick non-spoiler paragraph plot outline and the series cast that star in the movie (or something else) and possibly a screenshot. If I were wanting to find out more about a specific movie ("I saw a movie that had whales in it but don't know which it is") then I wouldn't want to sift through all of them to find it. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 18:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: That's what I meant. And since the TV series blurbs pretty much have eliminated discussions re: popularity, controversy, etc. it's probably good to avoid same in the movie summaries (though of course these matters can be and are discussed elsewhere in the article). I tweaked the intro to reference the fact early planning for Trek XI is underway, and that European releases continued to number the films past STVI. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 03:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== ST universe discussion == |
|||
I think one of the big things missing from the article is a discussion of the optimism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that is the basis of ST. Since my arguing buddy, StAkAr Karnak, didn't pick up on my suggestion I think we need a [[Star Trek ideals]] or [[Star Trek culture]] with a short discussion in [[Star Trek]]. |
|||
Thoughts of topical inclusion? |
|||
* Starfleet's lack of concern for material |
|||
* Ferengi's drive for material |
|||
* Klingon's blood lust |
|||
* How can [[Star Trek]] not even have a *link* to [[Prime Directive]] |
|||
[[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I think each of these qualities are best discussed on the page for the particular society/group. (ex. Ferengi - section about materialism, etc).--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: I disagree. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 20:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== How many episodes? == |
|||
I previously wrote that there are 725 episodes in the franchise; a number we can now calculate because of ENT's cancellation. I neglected to count "Endgame" and "These Are the Voyages" as 2 episodes each, so that brings our total to 727. |
|||
For anyone that would like to check my math: TOS=80 (including "The Cage"), TAS=22, TNG=178, DS9=176, VOY=172, and ENT=99.--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Conflicting definition of "episode." startrek.com considers two-parters (even if shown originally as one such as pilots) as two episodes but DVDs consider (e.g., amazon [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000127LW2/]) them as one episode. I think clarification of "episode" is necessary. Same story line (not to be confused with story arcs) or smallest unit of playing (~1 hour on TV)? If we go with the former, two parters are one episode, which brings another problem of two-parters spanning seasons like TNG did for several seasons. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 20:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: Although initially shown as two-hour episodes, productions such as "Endgame" are rerun as 2 separate episodes. FWIW, I think each has its own production number as well. You mention cliffhanger two-parters, and I think these are a precedent for counting all two-parters as separate episodes, given their later episodic broadcasts. The exception would be "The Cage", because I don't think it has ever been presented in two parts (not counting "The Menagerie I & II").--[[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 21:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: I still think a clarification is necessary on the main page as to exactly what an episode is. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 21:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::: IMO I think it should be based upon the original broadcast format. In other words, any episodes that were originally aired as two-hour installments (i.e. Encounter at Farpoint, Emissary, Broken Bow, etc.) should be considered one episode, but episodes originally aired in two installments but later combined into two hour episodes (which I've heard was done with some TNG episodes for European release) should count as two. This requires a bit of research, since Voyager in particular aired a number of two-hour episodes. On the other hand, UPN has also taken two unrelated episodes and aired them as a two-hour special as well -- it will happen with the last two episodes of Enterprise -- and these should be considered separate episodes since they were not produced with the intent of being shown as one episode. I think that makes sense. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Actually, that should be simple to figure out. Just go through the episode guides at startrek.com and see the air date (or just look here at WP since that's where I copy air dates from). If they're the same then take one away from the total production count. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Star Trek XI article?== |
|||
Since there have been media reports and statements from Trek producers in recent weeks to the effect that a Trek XI film is in the early planning stages, with a script writer and general premise already decided, should a [[Star Trek XI]] article be started? It could follow the format of [[Casino Royale (2006 movie)]] which divides things into confirmed reports and unconfirmed media reports. Thoughts? [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Sounds fine to me. It would create an article for other articles to link to and a redirect when the article is moved to the full title. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 06:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Redirecting articles on races== |
|||
A user took the [[Gorn]] article and turned it into a redirect to [[List of Star Trek races]], deleting the content in the process. I can see it being done with smaller articles on obscure races referenced in the canon, but the Gorn is a pretty major part of Trek lore and the article was pretty detailed, so I reverted this change. There seems to be a number of articles being so deleted without going through the [[Votes for deletion]] protocol. If anyone has a races article they've created, or contributed to, you might want to check and see if it still exists, or if it has been made into a redirect. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 01:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Indrian] Indrian has been consolidating a lot of character/races into a single article. |
|||
:List of races made into a redirect: |
|||
:* [[Bandi (Star Trek)]] |
|||
:* [[Hirogen]] |
|||
:* [[Horta (Star Trek)]] |
|||
:* [[El Aurian]] |
|||
:* [[Denobulan]] |
|||
:* [[Deltan]] |
|||
:* [[Changeling (Star Trek)]] |
|||
:* [[Bynar]] |
|||
:* [[Briori]] |
|||
:* [[Breen]] |
|||
:* [[Bolian]] |
|||
:* [[Betazoid]] |
|||
:* [[Berellians]] |
|||
:* [[Arcturian (Star Trek)]] |
|||
:* [[Arcadian (Star Trek)]] |
|||
:* [[Anticans]] |
|||
:* [[Antedean]] |
|||
:* [[Angosian]] |
|||
:* [[Aenar]] |
|||
:* [[Aaamazzarite]] |
|||
: See [[Talk:List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters]] for some explanation by Indrian. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] |
|||
:: I've reverted a number of them. As I say, having a small article on a minor race redirected is one thing, but there are some major articles that have been eliminated.[[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: Note that [[WP:FICT]] is semi-policy and there people that disagree with it. I am one of them. You can't make a gray spectrum into black and white without controversy over where the line should be. WP:FICT sets the line very near one end. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 01:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:FICT]] is only a semi-policy, true, but does seem to be a good compromise between those that want this stuff deleted and those that want it kept. No information is lost and someone searching for a particular race or character will be able to find it easily through redirects. As for the gorn article, I did treat this differently because the material was all [[fanon]] (at least, the article itself and its talk page identifies it as such). If a wikipedia article is supposed to be factual and verifiable, it should not have made up stuff in it even if it is made up stuff that a large portion of the community likes quite a bit. If I am mistaken and this is not strictly fanon and is actually from a non-canonical source such as the animated series or the novel line, two sources I know little about, then I apoligize. However, if it is fanon, I stand by my move to eliminate the information. If I put a line in an article on [[Calvin Coolidge]] that he conquered Mexico and outlawed drinking milk because someone had written an amusing story in which he did just that, it would be considered vandalism and properly eliminated. I see no difference when it comes to a backstory created by fans of a fictional species. I also disagree that any major articles were eliminated. Some major races were merged, but only when the articles were relatively small. I was not touching Cardassian or Romulan, or Klingon, or even Augment. If Betazoid or El Aurian were to stay and later get bigger, no one would be preventing these articles from being broken out again. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wow, I'm not even going to address that horrible analogy. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It was supposed to be a bad analogy. I do not think fanon belongs. Have you read the Gorn article? There is some pretty silly stuff in the fanon section (though not as ridiculous as my analogy), assuming it was just made up for the fun of it, and you can correct me if it was not. I realize now that I failed to catch that the section below the fanon was from a published non-canon source and do apoligize for that oversight and accidental elimination of that material. That is what we have article histories and reverst for.[[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 04:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::My comment about the FICT policy (which I never heard of until today) has been made in the appropriate place. In terms of the fanon issue, according to the Wikipedia Project Star Trek article (I'm too busy to look up the direct link to it) states fanon should be noted as such but it doesn't prohibit it from being included. Some faith should be placed in regular editors such as Cburnett and myself (to name only two) who keep close tabs on many Trek articles and can and do jump in to make the appropriate corrections and reversions. If someone added to the [[T'Pol]] article that she was a dancing green elf from Alpha Centauri, it would exist in the article only so long as it takes someone like me to notice it. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*There seems to be some misunderstanding over [[WP:FICT]]. First, please note that it is not policy but a ''guideline'', and that it was established by heavy ''consensus'' after a public discussion that ran for weeks. This is mentioned on the FICT page, even if Cburnett overlooked it. |
|||
*WP:FICT was created after a flood of relatively unknown characters (from Tolkien, Harry Potter and Pokemon, mainly) were nominated for deletion (by, I must add, a seemingly malicious user who was blocked yesterday). Generally, the outcome of those votes is to '''merge''' them. The idea behind WP:FICT, therefore, is to '''merge''' short articles into comprehensive lists (e.g. [[Horses_of_Middle_Earth]] rather than stub articles on each individual horse). This allows information to be better organized and more easily found. |
|||
*I'm not an expert on Star Trek, but it seems to be me that important races (e.g. [[Vulcan]], [[Bajorran]] etc) should have their own articles, and less important races (anything featured in just one or two episodes) is better accessible if kept in a List of [[Star Trek Races]]. IMHO and YMMV. |
|||
*But anyway, people using [[WP:FICT]] as grounds for deletion of anything are clearly mistaken as to the nature of that policy. Hope that helps. |
|||
**Yours, [[User:Radiant!| ]][[User_talk:Radiant!|Radiant]][[meta:mergist|_*]] 14:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Motion pictures== |
|||
I merged the films into a single table because honestly theres really no room to expand on these given that they all have their own articles and any notable information for this page would be better suited in an expanded overview of the films. As they were, they were generic (same over and over - not really criticizing quality) in that they were listed only by name, the year, and the crew. If anyone disagrees, by all means revert it. One picture was removed from the section because it couldn't fit, the information on the film series, as stated, should be expanded so that this could be brought back. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 20:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm still learning how "prettytable" works. Is there any way to narrow it a tad so that the image of the Enterprise-E can go below the Enterprise-A? I think it would look better that way than the current format that leaves the Ent-E as a bit of an orphan. Alternately, perhaps the two images can go side-by-side, below the header and above the lead paragraph for the section. I don't know how to make images go side-by-side properly. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Thats not "prettytable". Pretty table is just a preset style. The length of the table is totally dependent of the information found inside of it. I shortened the names of the films to fix this. (ex. being Star Trek III: The Search for Spock -> The Search for Spock). I think the image we have of the current Enterprise needs to be replaced with a higher quality and more adaptable size. Then hopefully it won't look so out of place. I'll see what I can get from one of my DVDs. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 23:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::My bad - I thought there was some difference in width coding with the style. Anyway, it looks better. Of course there's now a bit of blank space. Perhaps there's a possibility of adding images of other vessels from the movies (i.e. V'Ger, the USS Grissom, the STIV probe), or alternately character shots? (BTW my computer problems appear to have been rectified (fingers crossed). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 23:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== DS9 console game == |
|||
*there was also a DS9 game for the Sega Genesis, I think the you played Odo or Sisko ... maybe someone will add that ([[User:131.130.121.106|131.130.121.106]] 16:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) |
|||
---- |
|||
== New Voyages additions == |
|||
I know there's a separate page for ST fan-made series and items, but New Voyages bears the distinction of endorsement from Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. and so deserves a mention on this page as well. [[User:ElKabong|ElKabong]] |
|||
: And then Takei endorses another fan series so someone decides it deserves mention here. And Nichols endorses some other series so someone decides it deserves mention here. And so on and so forth. And next thing you know we have a great big long screed about fan productions. Let's just keep the fan productions on [[Star Trek, other storylines]]. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 14:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== References??? == |
|||
Are there any references, like books, documentaries, etc that can be included in the bottom of the page? I don't know any particularly "central" ones... maybe Gene Roddenberry's biography... (criteria for FA status anyway). Also, is there an article that describes the fan culture of Star Trek? --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:There is the [[Trekkie]] article. There are a whack of reference books out there, though. Star Trek may well be the most written about series in history. I'll dig up a few and see what I can add. Someone may need to tweak the formatting as I'm not sure what Wikipedia style is for references. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::To create wikistyled references for inclusion in articles the easy way, go to [http://www.qwikly.com/WikiBib/Encyclopedia.html wikibib] put in your information and press the button. It makes a formatted citation for you which you can copy into your article. [[User:Rboatright|Rick Boatright]] 04:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oops! Too late. But there aren't overly many so if I have time I'll try and run them through the template (of if anyone else wants to, feel free). Although FA seems to require the references be included within the main article, I think a separate article on Star Trek reference works would also be worth creating. An excellent resource for checking release dates and publishers is [http://www.well.com/user/sjroby/lcars/index.html The Complete Starfleet Library] website. Most of the books I added just now are ones I own, but I added a few additional titles I've yet to obtain from checking this site. I tried to list books that covered the entire franchise, or the start of fandom, except for a couple of seminal works that were based upon the making of TOS alone. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Umm well I hate to say this, but none of the references listed in the actual Reference section as far as I can find are actually "referenced" (keyword here) in the article. This is a section where specific information throughout the article is cited (see [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]). What you've added is just supplemental reading material. Additionally, I disagree with the creation of a Star Trek references page considering what I've said above. The creation of a "List of Star Trek books" (perhaps a better title) type page, however, would be fine. Books that analyze Trek films, novels, the franchise etc.. ones like those you listed. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Maybe "Further reading" would be a better header for this list, as I don't think it's possible to create a bibliography (which is what is being asked for here) in such a collaborative effort. Most of what I write is the result of personal knowledge, not going through a book, except in the case of news-related items which are usually annotated with a link to the page from which the information appears. It would be impossible, for example, to cite references for ''Enterprise'' because, to date, no non-fiction book has been published in which that series is featured. My personal knowledge of the Star Trek franchise comes from books such as ''Inside Star Trek'' and ''The Making of Star Trek'', the latter I last read 20 years ago. Many of the books listed have been passively cited in the article, but if you want a quoting of chapter and verse, there's not enough time to go through them all.[[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 13:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Going through the list for FA status == |
|||
A featured article should: |
|||
# Exemplify Wikipedia's very '''best work'''. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. |
|||
# Be '''comprehensive''', '''factually accurate''', '''stable''', and '''well-written'''. Read [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|''Great Writing'']] and [[Wikipedia:The perfect article|''The Perfect Article'']] to see how high the bar can be set. |
|||
#* '''Comprehensive''': Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details. |
|||
#* '''Accurate''': Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]). Includes '''references''', arranged in a <nowiki>==References==</nowiki> section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]). |
|||
#* '''Stable''': Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day. |
|||
#* '''Well-written''': Compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles. |
|||
# Be '''uncontroversial''' (see [[Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles]]) and not have ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] (see [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]]). |
|||
# Comply with the '''standards''' set in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|'''style manual''']], as well as relevant [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]. This includes having a [[Wikipedia:Lead section|lead section]] which is ''brief'' but ''sufficient'' to summarize the entire topic, [[Wikipedia:Headings|headings]] and have a substantial, but not overwhelming table of contents (see [[Wikipedia:Section]]). |
|||
# Have '''[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''' where appropriate, with [[Wikipedia:Captions|good captions]] and acceptable [[wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright status]]. However, an article does not ''have to'' have a picture to be featured. |
|||
---- |
|||
What I think we need to work on: |
|||
# '''Comprehensive''': Further reading should include a list of articles that are majority important that have not been covered in the article. An example to this is [[Trekkies]]. Stuff like inconsistencies of Star Trek, arguments against Star Trek, etc... anything that will engage a reader's interest that is very much closely related to this article that hasn't been discussed in the article itself. No reference to [[Desilu Productions]]??? |
|||
# '''Accurate''': May need a bit of fixing... |
|||
--[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 18:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Suggestions== |
|||
First of all we are pushing Wikipedia to its limits with this many entries. This is hard work and it is ''imperative'' we have to work ''together''. |
|||
* Episodes should each be seperate articles, preferably in a name space sceme such as [[Star Trek:Voyager:(whatever episode)]] or Star Trek:Voyager/(episode number) - (episode name) |
|||
* Serries should be seperate articles, so should movies. [[Star Trek]] should be an introduction to [[Star Trek]] universe and a disambiguation page to other pages. Star Trek is not something you can fit in a page. |
|||
* Many of the star trek articles do not follow a standard sceme, a unified and easy to folow sceme should be incorporated. There are two Defiants for example, I had taken the liberty to create a disambig page and seperate the two ships properly. |
|||
* Ship names: Shipname (Ship number) |
|||
*:Ex: [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)]] |
|||
:::This is not the case all the time. |
|||
--[[User:Coolcat|Cool Cat]] [[User talk:Coolcat|<sup>My Talk</sup>]] 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: It think the name scheme suggested would be a bit difficult to execute given the dozens (if not hundreds) of articles that have already been created that would need to be renamed or moved. I think that's more trouble than it's worth. Better to simply add "... (ENT episode)" or "... (TNG episode)" or whatever to the relative few episode articles that have not yet been title-formatted that way. Having hundreds of articles all starting with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" would probably annoy the admins. I agree the episodes should be separate articles, and they should all follow a similar format. I've seen some indication of this already being done. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 05:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The objective here is to cover as much as we can within reason. A typical style of organization of the Wikipedia is that if it can not fit into a main article, it's branched off. The problem we have is that so much of the subject Star Trek has been broken off to so many articles, we've lost the ability to focus where the root branches are. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 10:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Reorganization == |
|||
We should be linking to the most important links... not something like [[TOS TrekMUS]]. Stuff like that should go under [[Trekkies]]. The problem is that we need to attempt to separate the canon stuff from the fan fiction stuff. I believe that we should attempt to focus on the official authorized stuff from Paramount. I think what I'm a bit disappointed in is the history behind the franchise which should be covered, in a summary or in length in this article. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Here's a list of things I think should be covered somewhere: |
|||
* History of Star Trek (as opposed to History '''in''' Star Trek) |
|||
** Some borrowing from [[Star Trek: The Original Series]] may be necessary. |
|||
* Star Trek Merchandise (authorized, fan fiction, etc) |
|||
* Star Trek Fandom (cite Fan sites, Fan RPGs, etc) -> TOS TrekMUS should fit nicely here. |
|||
* A split between the material of Star Trek (the canon stuff) and the material on the history of Star Trek |
|||
* Actors of Star Trek (Maybe focus an article on that?) Specifically, perhaps talk a bit on key cast members, or split that up into Cast of '''<insert series here>''' articles? |
|||
From [[Star Trek Further Reading]]: |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: TOS episodes]] |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes]] |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: TNG episodes]] |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes]] |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes]] |
|||
* [[List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes]] |
|||
* [[Physics and Star Trek]] |
|||
* [[References in Star Trek]] |
|||
* [[References to Star Trek]] |
|||
* [[Timeline of Star Trek]] |
|||
* [[Treknobabble]] |
|||
This stuff should be included INTO the article itself. Not as a list. We should attempt to write in the links. As it stands, I feel that the article would stand better with a rewrite. The reason I can't really start is that I don't really know all the Star Trek articles. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Starting a draft here. [[Star Trek/temp]] --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Some other key things to note about: Exploration of current culture, parallelism of current events, depiction against certain things such as racism. Part of the thing is when I read the Star Trek article is how much it seems we assume of the reader. Does the average person know who Rick Berman is? Not likely. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't know if including the episode lists into the main article would be a good idea. With 700+ entries, it would make things a bit list heavy and I have learned that the "judges" for FA status do not like lists. The article [[James Bond]] was rejected for FA status and one of the reasons given was because it included a list of all the Bond books, despite this being considered vital information. Length is also an issue - if the article becomes too long it can be detrimental to it being selected. I personally wish the FA rules could be changed so that sets of articles could be nominated, rather than just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. In many respects, the Trek franchise is a huge jigsaw puzzle, and the main [[Star Trek]] article is simply the box. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: Let me rephrase that. I meant that the links above which were a list on [[Star Trek Further Reading]] should be included into the article. Not the pages which are lists themselves. Something like: Star Trek: The Original Series made up a [[List of Star Trek: TOS episodes|total of 80 episodes]]. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: My bad. That makes sense. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Here's some ideas for sentences: |
|||
* Star Trek is well known for its [[Treknobabble|technobabble]] that heavy relies science and technology leading to somewhat of a [[Physics and Star Trek|Star Trek's version of Physics]]. |
|||
* Star Trek's fame in culture has caused many [[references to Star Trek]], likewise, Star Trek has made many [[References in Star Trek|references to other celebrated works]]. |
|||
* Star Trek's view of the future is similar to our own but holds many differences. The [[timeline of Star Trek]] shows how divergent our current history is from Star Trek's. |
|||
--[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] |
|||
== "light Next Generation" == |
|||
From the article: |
|||
:''Due to its generally darker theme, many fans of the generally light Next Generation failed to return as an audience.'' |
|||
Um...I object to both the idea the NexGen was "light", to the suggestion that DS9's "generally darker theme" was a reason for NexGeners "not returning", and even to the idea that NexGeners didn't "return". I think that DS9 started to lose its "mass audience", but true NexGen fans would hardly have been "scared away" by DS9's themes. Anyone have thoughts here? [[User:Func|<tt>func</tt>]][[User_talk:Func|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Actually, it could be said that DS9 had a rough start... as with any show... and that it really picked up in the latter seasons. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:42, 21 May 2024
![]() | Star Trek is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Star Trek has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 [[1]].
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 [[2]].
- 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 [[3]].
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:
- Mark L Smith film has been cancelled. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/22/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-mark-l-smith-week-in-geek
- Noah Hawley Film has been cancelled https://geektyrant.com/news/noah-hawley-explains-how-his-star-trek-movie-fell-apart-due-to-stupid-hollywood-executives#:~:text=Fargo%20and%20Legion%20creator%20Noah,still%20in%20this%20insane%20mindset.
- Vazquez - Source does not mention Vazquez. Film was suppposed to be released in 2023
- Picard film:
- * 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)
- DisneyMetalhead you have done some great work. We appreciate it. Oldag07 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Redundant list of TV shows
Do we still need a section for all the series when there is a whole article that already does that at List of Star Trek television series? Feels like this is just leftover from before that article was created and was never cleaned-up. I propose we remove those sections and just have the overview table like we do for the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm willing to be swayed by other editors, but it does seem a bit redundant, and creates more work when updates are needed. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can get behind this. Perhaps we can compress these into three major sections:
- Broadcast series TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT
- Streaming: DIS, PIC, SNW, Academy
- Animated: TAS, Lower Decks, Prodigy
- That would seem to draw a false distinction between the animated shows and the other two categories (especially since Lower Decks at least is a streaming show as well)? DonIago (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have suggested some alternate ideas for splitting up the list of TV shows at Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would think the most logical divide would be Animated and Live Action. Isn't that the standard division in most media articles? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that would be more arbitrary than some of the other suggestions, the three animated shows don't have much to do with one another. I think broadcast and streaming would make more sense because it keeps all the Kurtzman-era shows together. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the redundant sections but did not split the TV shows into sections yet, waiting for clearer consensus on the best direction for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Broadcast and streaming sounds fine to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have moved this part of the discussion to Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series. I think it is better to keep it one place. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Broadcast and streaming sounds fine to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the redundant sections but did not split the TV shows into sections yet, waiting for clearer consensus on the best direction for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that would be more arbitrary than some of the other suggestions, the three animated shows don't have much to do with one another. I think broadcast and streaming would make more sense because it keeps all the Kurtzman-era shows together. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As long as there's are the same details and a similar layout on the List of Star Trek television series article, this doesn't seem controversial.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nice, the page is 122,190 bytes as of this edit. This article hasn't been this slim since 3 September 2019. That is the year of discovery's first season. This is with a bunch of new content. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 (talk) 12:19, 29 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)
- 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)
Proposal to move the List of Star Trek episodes into the List of Star Trek lists
A proposal has been made to move the List of Star Trek episodes page into the List of Star Trek lists. Discussion Oldag07 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merged Oldag07 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)