Talk:James T. Kirk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

James Cawley

How about James Cawley who plays Kirk in Star Trek New Voyages. There's no mention of him in this article.

Because he's a fan who plays Kirk in his poorly produced fan film that isn't official. He has no business being mentioned here. If we mentioned him, we'd have to mention every single fan who played Kirk on their YouTube films.

Future/Past

Take this all in good fun, but since star trek takes place in the future shouldn't read he will be born or he will be the captain :)Smith03 02:56, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's understood that he "was" born in the context of the future, fictional Star Trek universe...it would be kind of weird to say he "will be born" into something that isn't real :) Adam Bishop 03:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See also: slash fiction? I can understand its relation to Star Trek, but why place the link here? Removed for now, revert if you like. --Ardonik 00:41, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Non Canon

I don't think that the plots of non-canon books should be included in this article. Does anyone have an idea about what to do with them?

Acegikmo1 08:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Give the Shatnerverse its own entry, away from mainstream ST continuity. Perhaps it could be treated as an ST alternate universe?

User: Calibanu 15.09, 30 July 2006

According to Leonard Nimoy in his real world books, The ACTORS were charged with being the "keeper" of the character by Gene. There was more than one writer, cranking out scripts willy-nilly, with no continuity except that which the ACTORS gave them. If Nimoy said, "Spock would never say/do that!" then he would bring it to Gene who would give the ultimate re-write. In that context, Shatner is as good an authority as Gene himself, and in complete command of Kirk. During the 1960 series, Shatner took Nimoy's lines (common knowledge) establishing Shatner as an authority of the character, Kirk.

Ladies

I know it would be a bit of a project, and I am not the man to take it on, but how can there really be a wikipedia entry on Kirk with no mention of the bevy of ladies wheeled on as 'Romantic Interest'?!? Surely there should be a list, with brief details of appearance, episode, etc etc... Come on you Trekkers - build the list build the list build the list...--Yyem 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do have to agree, Kirk is quite the man-whore... something needs to be mentioned about this... 72.69.128.184 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Shatnerverse, Shatner himself establishes that Carol was his one true love who took David away from him. Thus, heartbroken, Kirk has cheap meaningless one night stands with every woman in the galaxy. According to Shatner, Kirk did not want to fall in love with or develop a relationship with anyone else. "He loved them all, and always would." Shatner wrote, and the "cure" for Elasian tears was the Enterprise herself.

Star Trek Generations

Little confusion about when the first part of Star Trek Generations was set. Info I have from sources says it was in 2295. Star Trek VI was set in 2293 and the Enterprise-B launch was 2 years later. Am I off? Let me know...Husnock 12 Sep 2004

I'm not sure, but TOS is generally set 300 years in the future, so a movie released in 1991 would normally be 2291 (and 2 years later would then be 2293). But that's not set in stone, of course. Adam Bishop 05:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the end of season 1 of TNG, Data tells some people from the 21st century that by their calendar is is 2364. In Generations Geordi comments that the first season Farpoint mission was "seven years ago", making it 2371 in the later portion of Generations. Since the caption "78 years later" follows the action at the beginning of Generations, then we can say with confidence that the beginning section is set in 2293.

The idea that there is two years between ST VI and the launch of the Enterprise-B is not supported by canon. It seems that only a few weeks or months passed in actual fact.

However I have also heard speculation that several years pass, since there is no reference in STVI that the Enterprise-B was under construction. It would explain the decommissioning of the relatively new 1701-A, however, but there's really nothing in canon to say exactly what the interval was between STVI and the launch of the ENT-B. 23skidoo 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Such speculation cannot be true, unless we want to disregard what is actually said in the episodes and movies. As for there being nothing in canon to say what the interval was - every date I gave was specifically stated on screen. You don't get more canon that that, and those dates prove that the E-B was commissioned very shortly after the E-A was retired.

As for the E-A being quite new, we don't know. One theory is that the E-A was previously another ship which was renamed in honour of the 1701, so it actually wasn't new at all. Certainly it would be odd for the Federation to still be rolling out Constitution class ships when the new Excelsior class was already in testing. And in any case, inserting two or three years wouldn't help the problem much - you'd need to add more like two or three decades to make a new-build E-A suitably aged for retirement.

There's a stardate given in Generations, but there has never been a canonical translation of what the stardates translate to in terms of weeks or months. Show me where in Generations - chapter and verse - where it says only a few weeks or months passed after STVI. PS. Please sign your comments using four ~ symbols. Thanks. 23skidoo 23:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier - in the season one episode "The Neutral Zone", it is established that season 1 of the Next Generation takes place in 2364 - Data actually says "By your calendar it is the year two thousand three hundred sixty-four." In the TNG portion of Generations, when Data and Geordi are on the observatory Data is laughing at a joke Geordi told on the Farpoint mission. Geordi says "that was seven years ago!" - so the TNG portion of the movie must be taking place in 2371. Now recall that the caption at the start of the TNG section reads "78 years later". So the E-B's encounter with the Nexus is 78 years prior to 2371, i.e. 2293.

Therefore, the launch of the E-B was NOT in 2295.

Your numbers are correct, but that doesn't answer the question as to when Star Trek VI takes place, which is the crux of the argument that the E-B was launched mere weeks or months after the events of that film, which contains no reference to a standard calendar date (and the 1000 stardates = 1 earth year calculation does not apply to pre-TNG stardates). We can most certainly say when the E-B was launched, but there is nothing in the canon to suggest how long after STVI that was (except that it was long enough for Kirk to get some Grecian formula treatment for his hair ;) ). 23skidoo 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do know that in ST VI, McCoy says he has served on the Enterprise for 27 years. Since season 1 is set in 2266, that puts First Contact in 2293.

Apple green Jacket?

From all the Kirk fans, some previews of the "end of series" episodes of Enterprise show a very quick scene of Captain Archer wearing Kirk's "apple green" jacket, standing in wat looks like Kirk's stateroom from the original series. Any ideas on if this is the long awaited Kirk connection? Hmmm. -Husnock 22Mar05

Reply...

{{spoiler}} That is a scene from a Mirror Universe episode ("In a Mirror, Darkly") and Mirror-Archer is wearing the uniform of the captain of the USS Defiant from "Tholian Web" (you have to see the episode or seek more detailed spoilers to figure that all out). There's no connection between this and Kirk's return ALTHOUGH there is a rumor that an early script for this episode did feature Kirk. The general consensus is UPN wouldn't agree to pay Shatner's price (or ABC wouldn't let him do a show on a rival network) and nothing could be arranged before ENT was cancelled. Shatner was quoted as saying that he might have appeared in the fifth season opener, but that's moot now. 23skidoo 19:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current Rank

Current rank: captain? Current as of when?

Please sign your comments with four ~ symbols. He had the rank in his final (canonical) appearance in Generations. Since this is a template, I don't think it can be changed to read "final rank" or something like that. 23skidoo 12:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Race

Perhaps I'm being picky, but Kirk is listed as being of 'race: human'. Shouldn't this be 'species: human', or 'family: human'? Comparing the various definitions at Dictionary.com suggests that 'phylum' would be the most appropriate term - the Star Trek universe has lizard men, for example, and rock monsters. The show throws a spanner in the works by having humans, Klingons, Vulcans and so forth interbreeding, but 'race' seems much too low down the taxonomy ladder. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically, yes, race is incorrect; I think this comes second in common Star Trek English errors (right after the "to boldly go" split infinitive). However, when used in Star Trek, it can be defended: during the time in which it is set, "race", as we use it, is redundant, and so can be 'pushed up' (as it were). On here, however, you can't quite use that excuse, perhaps it should read "Race: American" (not that that does not raise questions), personally I favour "Species: Homo sapien". --Cerveau 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I once had to correct an edit from someone who put Kirk's race as "caucasian". The reason I did that is in the context of Star Trek it's made clear that by the timeframe of the franchise, humans were identified in the grand scheme of things as humans, not blacks, Asians, whites, etc. - in the case of Vulcans we've seen black, white and Hispanic-esque Vulcans yet they're never referred to as anything but Vulcan. There are clearly white and black Klingons too. I agree that if Kirk is to be identified with a "genome" it should be "human" (not homo sapien as it could be argued that Trek has shown us "alien" beings that could be considered homo sapien, too. 23skidoo 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In a completely irrelevant little Trekkie nitpick sideline, there aren't "white and black" Klingons. The "white" Klingon seen in one of the movies was an albino. 86.146.222.98 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term species should be used, however, since the Star Trek world is rather large and self-contained, I would think it would be more fitting to point to Human_(Star Trek) -- i.e.: species: human --Inarius 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Larry Niven & Azimov both showed how outside of Earth, humans will evolve into something a little different, so Homo Sapiens is out. Human or Terran should be in. Niven adapted one of his stories for the Animated Series and Azimov was the go-to "Science Guy" for the Original Series. Unrelated to Kirk, I know but on the topic of Species-ism. TNG introduced a "Pak" like precursor to all "humanoids" (Niven)

In science fiction, a race generally means the same thing as a species. It is OK to say "Race: Human" as opposed to "Vulcan," "Borg," or "Talaxian." But in real-world biology, a geographical race or variation is not the same thing as a species, although the term is sometimes used interchangeably with "subspecies." 153.2.246.31 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are new, but could you be troubled to utilize the formatting protocols that the rest of us have learned to use? It makes reading posts and following conversations so much easier. This means increased indenting for your responses to other posts using the colon (:). and signing your posts with four tildes (~). Thanks in advance. :)

Secondly, I repeat that what Paramount wants is not (pardon the pun) of paramount importance to this encyclopedia. Canon has precisely no weight here. We are not here for the fandom (ask anyone: fanboys get zero rhythm from me, and in fact, garner my utter contempt); I am not calling you such, anon. I am simply pointing out that I have a very good nose for what is and what is not fancruft. Cruft will be excised like the smelly garbage it is. Arguing for its inclusion using strawman arguments (ie, the references to "Britannia" [sic]) are not the best way to proceed here, so you might want to leave the snippy at the door, please.

How the Star Trek Encyclopedia wishes to conduct itself is its business; if you wish to contribute here, you need to pay heed to our policies and guidelines.

I tell you what: open an Request for Comment regarding the redlinked Sarah Smith. As it stands, you are not finding a consensus for its inclusion at this time, so it does not go into the article. Until you find or build a consensus for inclusion, you may not add it. Well, you can, but that would be edit-warring, and will likely get you blocked.

Finally, the ad hominem response! (you'll also notice that I've logged on!) And Britannia is spelled... err... Britannia. Nor does observing the parallel of how other encyclopedias are utilised by wiki constitute a strawman arguement. Questions: 1) Why the singling out of one book for special mention? Indeed, why not cite the book "Kobyashi Maru" in the following section (which mentions that very event)?; 2) What are the criteria for reliable sources? I think I've some material from other novels that will be ripe for inclusion. Again, Paramount do not consider as reliable material which has not been presented in a film or episode.Catiline63 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to add material about Kobyashi Maru, by all means do so. The policies regarding reliable sources are at WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." (my italics)

And the context within which we're working is that Paramount, the owners of Star Trek, do not consider novels, etc. as "officially" part of the Star Trek universe. Catiline63 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the context in which we're working is Wikipedia. If a story claims that X happens in story Y, we can print in Wikipedia, "In story Y, X happens," regardless of what Wikipedia or anyone else things about whether it "fits" into their universe. The sticking point is the degree to which you call on these peripheral materials -- should an article have a summary of all of Kirk's adventures in the Star Trek EU, for example? The guiding principle really isn't so much WP:RS but WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

EEMIV pretty much said it more succinctly than I did. I am sorry if you are having trouble grasping how Wikipedia is different from the ST encyclopedia or the Encyclopædia Britannica (which I presume you were referring to by the repeated and incorrect usage of "Brittania"), but we do not consider "canon" material any more reliable than non-canon material here. If it is citable and notable and verifiable, we can include it. If you had read my earlier post about the Kirk/Spock Buick tryst more carefully, you would have seen the only out available to you regarding canonicity is the Undue Weight argument.

And trust me, when you get an ad hominem attack from me, you will know it. I shouldn't have to repeat the same information to you three times in a row; if you perceive a certain level of exasperation from me regarding it, don't consider it an attack; understand from whence it comes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The heading says it all: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". By veering wildly from what the owner considers official material, the door is opened for anyone to add any material they wish, regardless of provenence and quality. Indeed, why not list all those amateur actors playing Kirk in fan-fiction right up there with Shatner? Thus it does turn out that he's not the only Kirk... 8o)

Also, the inclusion of a novel in the article sets the prescedent for more novel-based material to filter in. And then comic-based stuff. Considering the volume and contradictory nature of this unofficial material (both with respect to other novels as well as the episodes - Final Frontier states that Starfleet's only just be established in Kirk's dad's day when "really it was over a century before), it's sensible to adhere to the owners wishes. Parallel may be found on the Sherlock Holmes page where canonical material (Conan Doyle's books) is treated seperately to his portrayal in other media (other authors, films, etc). Not all material is equal.Catiline63 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, the point you are missing/avoiding/ignoring is that you are placing your own personal swavey on what is indiscriminate or not. We are not talking about listcruft like this, we are talking about an end-run around our lack of concern over the essential triviality of canonicity; we see it as crufty nonsense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe using Sherlock isn't the best example. True, it uses the term canonicity (to its detriment, and that will likely be addressed sooner or later). You are better off seeking examples from amongst our featured article-level articles, like Jack Sparrow, Dalek, Jabba the Hutt, Jason Voorhees, Troy McClure and fairly notably, Bernard Quatermass. All are pretty good examples of how to write an featured-quality article, and none of them has sections pointing to their canonicity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles you cite, like that of Holmes raised by me, all differentiate "official" biographical material from material accrued from other media. Such secondary material is universally relegated to the bottom of the page. Nowhere is the originator's (or francise-holder's) information mixed with that presented in other media. Jabba the Hutt is a special case, as Lucas includes all depictions in an expanded universe. Indeed, the Quatermass article you cite as the best exemplum of your arguement is divided into 1) On-screen depiction (TV and film); 2) Other media (incl. novels and theatrical presentation); 3) Unofficial 'in character' appearances (notably in a Dr. Who story set in 1963). This differentiation is precisely the kind of thing toward which the Kirk article should aim. Note also the differentiation between officical and unofficial material.

Anyway, I'm off to find a sh1tload of uncontradictable biographical detail taken from the comics!Catiline63 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll also trawl through the fan-films and check out whose also played Kirk...Catiline63 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "who's". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catiline63 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

These editors aren't concerned with "official" or "unofficial", but instead are differentiating between media, with the most well-known medium coming first. Such a treatment would be just fine with this article -- and will become necessary when the new movie comes out and we differentiate between "classic" and "reboot" versions of the character. If you can amass verifiable information about the character and want to structure the article with content from other media, that could be a fine idea. Keep in mind, though, WP:IINFO. Many of these articles don't include non-TV/-movie information because the events in books and comics really don't matter for these characters -- Paramount's licensing (until recently with DS9 and Voyager) has required that characters, events, circumstances etc. be pretty much the same at the beginning and end. Kirk isn't going to undergo any major change or development in Book #8 or comic #17; that information doesn't warrant inclusion. The EU material mentioned in this article points specifically toward content/character aspects not covered in the "mainstream" Star Trek medium. But, again, it has nothing to do with canon/non-canon.

And look, too, at the guidelines for writing about fictional topics. You changed the verb tense a few reverts ago to, basically, the wrong one. You'll see, too, that these articles aren't focused on amassing a "shitload" of "biographical detail" -- as much as possible, these articles need to keep that to a minimum. Instead, sections on (real-world) character development (e.g. what were the writer's pondering? what arcs did they ponder? what did they want the character to grow into), critical response, etc. are supposed to be the meat here. When you find your biographical details from the comics, take it instead of Memory Alpha or Memory Beta. --EEMIV (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes Catiline, but the difference between official/unofficial and canon/non-canon is that the latter is fan-drivel drivel. If you wish to re-structure the article to be more characterization (via consensus, of course, and after the 24 hours have passed) and less of the fan-world pretension that he is a real person with a real history, please feel free. Less in-universe crazyness is always appreciated. Develop out how Kirk's birthplace evolved, and how (and maybe even why) his history took the shape it does, via cited references. All the canon/reliably notable material in the world isn't going to help an article that is hopeless mired down in the minutiae of a fictional character. Keep in mind to write about the character as a construct, and not a real person.

As for the other folk portraying the person of Kirk, maybe a subsection called 'Other portrayals' or 'As portrayed by others', to note Cawley's portrayal, etc. As to the Smith characterization, it wasn't notable enough for inclusion; there is a reason some folk are a redlink, my friend... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, could I impose upon you to properly indent your posts? Its pretty annoying to have to do it for you every time. Of course, I don't have to do that, I could simply ignore the posts themselves, since a failure to indent infers that the ost isn;t part fo the conversation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's exactly because I don't want fan drivel to become prominent in this article - which can be so much improved and augmented - that I'm arguing for the removal of Carey's book from where it is! I think it sets a bad prescedent for anyone whose read a book/comic (Shatnerverse included!), thinks that some piece of minutia in it is of great important and comes on here to ruin the set up. It'll also stop the fan-film brigade coming on and stating arguements like "Ah, but X played Kirk in fan-film Y". Or somesuch. I didn't want an arguement with you guys, I'm not even saying that there should be a bar on "unofficial" and fan depictions, it's just that there should be a demarcation between what's presented in the episodes/films, what's presented in licensed tie-in books/comics/etc, and what's presented in fan-fiction.

I'm off for a paracetamol. Sorry if I've screwed the indent thing again...82.44.82.115 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me.Catiline63 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirk as Rear-Admiral, not Admiral

Memory Alpha, the wiki of Star Trek canon, lists Kirk's admiralty as that of rear-admiral, based upon his uniform shoulder epualets and cuff stripes (ST: TMP), and shoulder and cuff pins (STII-IV). Many illustrations are also provided. See also Okuda's "Star Trek Encyclopedia" p.210.82.44.82.115 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is not a reliable source. But the Encyclopedia will suffice. And I actually didn't mean to revert that piece; it was an error. --EEMIV (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as it is cited to that source. It cannot be included without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Noticed the contradiction in your arguement, eh? But he was some type of admiral, right? Why get rid of that datum 82.44.82.115 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirk's rank of rear-admiral is confirmed in the book Star Trek: Challenger by Diane Carey, who also wrote Final Frontier. She's a reliable source; let's include it then! Catiline63 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you add the citation as to the book? Presuming you own it, use can use cite book and add it. A reminder though, via your anon, you have grossly violated 3RR, so perhaps you might want to take extra care to not revert any material already present in the article, as reverting would trigger a 3RR complaint and block. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Hornblower on Roddenberry's Kirk

At the moment, the article reads as if Roddenberry was directly/largely influenced/inspired by the Hornblower books when devising the character of Kirk. However, the only citations I can find are:

"Captain Kirk is Capt. Hornblower of the sailing ships. [He] was a great hero, and Hemingway said [Hornblower] is the most exciting adventure fiction in the human language." (from Rodddenberry in 1991 already linked)

and

"In many respects Kirk resembles the captain of an 18th century ship of the line - Captain Horatio Hornblower. Anyone familiar with C. S. Forrester's (sic) famous Hornblower series will quickly recognise similarities in the personalities of both men. It should not be suprising to learn that Gene Roddenberry rates Captain Horatio Hornblower as one of the all-time great adventure characters in history." (from Whitfield and Roddenberry, 1968 (republ. 1991) p. 191)

However, as neither of these statements illustrate that Roddenberry at all utilised Forester's character - but merely give post eventum acknowledgement of similarities in the characters of Kirk and Hornblower - should not this section be altered to reflect this?Catiline63 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield gives some quotes on this, acknowledging that Kirk was to some extent based on Hornblower. I believe there are some quotes from the original series handbook in it. One of the books about the movies has quotes from Nick Meyer where he also learned of the Hornblower/Kirk connection. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote I gave is the only quote from Whitfield dealing with Hornblower. It's in the Chapter entitled "The Ship's Captain" - the only chapter which discusses Kirk's development in depth. The Meyer quote would be nice to have (can you source it?), but as it stands there's still no proof that Roddenberry used Hornblower's characterisation was a basis for Kirk's.Catiline63 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lori Ciana

What more can I say on Lori Ciana... The novelisation of TMP (1979) has her as Kirk's wife and a vice-admiral. She was beaming aboard in order to assist Kirk in making the Enterprise ready for departure. The story of the relationship between her and Kirk is fleshed out more in J.M. Dillard's "Lost Years" novel (1989), set between TOS and TMP. In it, she's assigned to Starfleet's diplomatic department. Much as I don't want non-episodic, non-filmic material to be included, if it must be then a second wife is quite an important biographical detail.Catiline63 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nifty, but as you were on wafer-thin ice in regards to 3RR (with 7 reverts in less than 24 hours), you shuld have brought the info here, with a citation, to argue for the inclusion. Reverting, as I have explained somewhat exhaustingly on your two user pages,is not an effective replacement for discussion, and repeatedly reverting back to a preferred version only lands you into blockable territory. When you find yourself reverting more than once, take a moment to cool off. If the info is so world-endlingly incorrect, trust that the other million or so editors in Wikipedia will catch the glaring error and fix it. If they don't, youcan come back in a while and fix it yourself, or at the very least talk about it, and find a consensus for including it. Just reverting is edit-warring, and will land you in a time out.

I would advise you, in the strongest possible terms, not to revert again. Seek a consensus - we aren't unreasonable (really) - and one of us will add it for the time being. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ciana stuff wasn't in his earlier edits; it's not a 3RR item. As for the content itself: I can vouch that the TMP novelization contains this material, and am fine with its inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So does the second wife go in?Catiline63 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that I only reverted Arcayne's reversion because he misunderstood my reference to the transporter victim as being Sonak 8o)Catiline63 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, 3RR applies even if you are reverting someone's misunderstanding, or if the info is new. 3 reverts in 24 hours means precisely that. The only exceptions to 3RR are blatant disruption and/or vandalism, which none of the edits reverted constitute.

As for the inclusion, I guess I am okay with it being included, so long as it is cited. It doesn't rease the 3RR violation, though. In the future (if you are not blocked, or even if you are), if you have a disagreement, Catiline/anon, make every effort to resolve the problem here in the discussion pae. Revert-warring only lands your ass in a sling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

If the Shatnerverse and other novels are to be accepted, the Infobox is wrong as he did not die in 2371 (Generations). Which is correct?Catiline63 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He was thought lost on one date, and he died later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If he did die in Generations, it should have "2371 (actual)" - as it does. If the Shatnerverse is admissable, it should have "unknown (after 2371)"Catiline63 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion in Wikiproject Star Trek here. Monitor that for input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reboot

I've moved the section from the article to here, as it isn't cited whatsoever, and it needs to be, and not from the trailers either. There will be reviewers commenting on that (not bloggers). That's who we cite from at this early stage. Until then, the material cannot return to the article.
The removed section:

Reboot

In 2009, J.J. Abram's new motion picture Star Trek will introduce a new, rebooted version of Star Trek continuity, including Kirk and the rest of the Enterprise crew. This new Kirk is portrayed by Chris Pine. Early trailers show scenes of him being a rebel in his youth, unhappy with a so-called "normal life," and aching for something more. His initial encounters with Spock seem less than friendly, with Kirk being frustrated with Spock's emotionless ways, and even goading him into a physical brawl.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

In "Where No Man Has Gone Before", during Kirk's fight with Gary Mitchell, a grave is prepared for Kirk's burial with the words "James R Kirk" on the headstone. This can only mean that at the time Kirk's middle name was not Tiberius and that Roddenberry likely hadn't given thought to a middle name before constructing the prop. An alternative explanation might be that Roddenberry "knew" Kirk's middle name but no one else did at the time. In this scenario, Roddenberry may have directed a prop tombstone be constructed which said, "James T. Kirk," but was misunderstood. He then either overlooked the mistake or didn't have time to correct it when filming.
I think it would be appropriate to mention this in the article. --65.202.227.57 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)mjd

Despite that in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" that Kirks name was "James R. Kirk", he does say several times that his name is "James T. Kirk", and in Roddenberry's novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it is stated Kirks name is "James Tiberius Kirk". He is also called "James Tiberius Kirk" in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. In fan lore it is beyond a doubt he is James T. Kirk and we shouldn't put any mention of 'James R. Kirk' in the article at all. - 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC) I am not a member of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk)

Dept. Color Identification with Cast

In this revision, I added red, blue and gold to the rank column of the character profiles. It seems appropriate to not only identify their rank but their department service color. Especially with the new movie coming out and this being such a major identifier as to the characters. No where else in wiki does this information appear. My changes were reverted once, so I improved them. In the event they are reverted again, I put this argument forth to general wiki consensus as to whether they should be kept and improved upon. Garish is in the eye of the beholder.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So is fan preoccupation with putting pretty coors in infoboxes. We don't do that here - we are an encyclopedia, not a fan wiki. Seek a consensus in the wikiproject first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your tone, insulting, elitist, condescending and abrasive, it seems from your other responses to me you are incapable of making constructive comments without being patronizing. Though you'll be happy to know you are not alone. What makes you think I am a fan? Also, Wiki makes it very clear that when someone sees a need for change that one approach is to make it. Since there is no other discussion of the colour changes in any of these articles it seemed logical to make them. This is hardly vandalism and I am the only one of the respondents to these changes that have tried to carry on a coherent discussion about the validity of these changes. Clearly not everyone at Wiki sees putting pretty colors in infoboxes as big a problems as you do. Even in the Star Trek articles. Either way, it's very clear to me what you do here at wiki.--75.51.188.79 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Each of your responses across the various talk pages starts off with accusations of incivility toward the numerous editors who disagree with your addition of colors to the articles. Rather than sniping, please take a breather and a break to consider that just maybe there is a consensus that your good-faith additions just aren't the most appropriate for these pages. Again, please read WP:WAF for a better idea of the type of information that is appropriate for articles about fictional topics. --EEMIV (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would point out that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it"; I was simply pointing out that pretty coloration has been tried here in the past and fairly soundly rejected. It wasn't as if you were told to kindly FOAD, either by myself or others. Maybe take the fact that you are newer than some of us others and listen to some of our points of view. We aren't here to pimp-slap you around; we've had some experience in knowing what works and what doesn't. That does not mean that you shouldn't try new things, but rather that you should get input before making changes that affect an entire group of articles. Wikipedia is a community effort; if you want to be a part of that community, you have to work effectively with others. If cannot or won't you will find the going difficult and the fun you could be having severely limited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of color-coating these articles, considering that putting colors in info-boxes is actually common on wikipedia, such as on political articles (go to List of Presidents of the United States for example, or List of Prime Ministers of Canada), there shouldn't be a problem with color coating Kirks, or any other fictional Star Trek characters articles. This isn't the Star Trek Fan Wiki (Memory Alpha, which is at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main), but the goal of Wikipedia is to be as informative as possible and to convey knowledge. People who might want to bone up on Star Trek before the upcoming film should have a quick and easy way to find out the ranks of their favorite characters.
Now we should all stop arguing about this and more on to more important work. I am Not a Member of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk • contribs)

Um, I would suggest that you not treat the matter as if it were a done deal, because it isn't. Your comparison of fictional characters in a tv show to US Presidents or Canadian Prime Ministers is fairly incorrect. It isn't real - you do understand that, right? Using colors to denote different characters, races, etc. is not encyclopedic, and flies in the face of looking at fictional material for what it is - a phenomenon within the real world. We have a policy that governs that called Writing About Fiction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Other portrayals

An editor keeps removing the bit about Kirk being portrayed in other media, such as fan-films. I think that since the article is focusing on the character Kirk, portrayals are notable, so long as the portrayal itself is notable, If the fan-film is notable, then so is the characterization. Thoughts and reasoning? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a suitable reference acknowledging the fan films, I could see it being included. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about two? (from Wired from NPR). There is also some nifty stuff at TrekMovie.com, wherein James Cawley (portrayer of Kirk in the Phase II webisodes) talks about how he will have an appearance in the Trek film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And this from CBS News. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the Lede so as to make it more current and added the refs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...and at least one other editor doesn't think its notable. Might it be possible that a wee bit of personal trekkie preference might be seeping in? Cawley's portrayal has been heavily referenced -independent of the fan film phenomena - and as a notable portrayal (as per WP policies on such), it should remain.

Additionally, it's ever so important to remain polite with others you edit with; offering personal snipes at other editors isn't a good way to go about this, and can lead to some rather frustrating consequences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the actual point -- I don't mind acknowledging that other portrayals happen; however, the claim that one particular fan portrayal is most notable needs to be cited. It hasn't been, and therefore the claim is inappropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Kirk has been portrayed by others. However, none of them has the level of notability that Cawley's portrayal has; indeed, it was because of the portrayal that prompted Abrams to cast himn in the 2009 film release. If you feel that other notable portrayals exist, and that they equal or exceed Cawley's, I would be delighted to see it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you disagree, and I don't care. What I care about is whether you can provide a citation to a third-party source identifying Cawley's or anyone else's fanfilm portrayal of Kirk as being "most notable". If not, then you are injecting OR/non-npov into the article, in which case the article should merely identify there are other portrayals without passing along unsubstantiated judgment/inference about which ones are more notable. I'm not saying someone is more notable that Cawley; I'm saying there's no quote that backs up the claim he is notable. If you have a reference to back up the assertion Abrams was influenced by his performance, that freakin' cite it. --EEMIV (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me where other web portrayals are notable. Show me where they are more notable than Cawley's; show me where any part of the statement is inaccurate POV. You can't? Ahh, I see then. Perhaps some of that OR and POV you keep suggesting i am displaying should be examined a wee bit more carefully. Cawley's portrayal is the only notable one - not noting it as the most notable ignores the other portrayals. Additionally, i disagree with your undiscussed edits to the synopsis. The best way to avoid being reverted is to discuss the edits - at least, that is what I've read.

If you wish to seek out a neutral opinion via RfC or Mediation, I am all for it.

The burden of proof is on those wishing to add or restore material. Cite a source that backs up Cawley's -- or any other fan's -- depiction as being "most notable" and it's kosher. --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are isunderstanding our notabilty guidelines. That the fellow has been cited as continuing the role is in fact the notable bit. Since there have also been other portrayals of Kirk in other mediums - and without notability (again, please feel free to provide citation as to the other portrayals' notability) - and Cawley is the only notable one according to our policies and guidelines, I am unsure what interpretation of our policies you are utilizing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep harping on me providing references to other actors' notable portrayals of Kirk -- I don't watch fan films, and have no idea if there's anyone out there. I don't doubt Cawley is the most written about, or even that Phase II is the most well-known fan production. But ascribing the "most notable" superlative without substantiation fails to meet our verifiability policy. That's it. Our policies and guidelines call for citations to reliable sources -- but so far, the only references to Cawley I've seen simply describe his role, but none of the third-party writers go so far as to call him the most notable. The closest I've seen is Cawley's own account of the UPN writers calling him "Kirk", and I've tweaked that anecdote into the article. --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently my previous three times of explaining it weren't quite enough - allow me to reiterate:

1. more people than Shatner, Pine and Cawley have portrayed Kirk.
2. many of these people portraying Kirk have been in web-based media, including fan films.
3. only Shatner, Pine and Cawley have any citable notability.
4. While other web portrayals exist, only Cawley has any notability outside of trekkie fandom

Therefore, Cawley has more notability than the other web portrayals.

Which part of that were you encountering difficulty? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability != Notability. Please cite a third-party source that identifies Cawley as the "most notable" or "most significant" or "most memorable" or "most well-known" or [insert superlative here]. I'm sure it's out there -- with Paramount becoming more receptive to fan-made productions, there might even be something at startrek.com (is it being updated any more?) -- but such a claim of prominence needs to be cited -- or, rather, paraphrased from and cited to a third-party source. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point, and I am really hoping at this point that it isn't a matter of you not wanting to get the point. Let me see if I understand your opposition: you are suggesting that it is original research to note that Cawley's portrayal is the most notable of the non-Shatner (and now non-Pine) stints? Since there is no notability for any of them but Cawley, it is not OR to note that:

1. there have been other portrayals of Kirk, and
2. that Cawley is the only of of these who have (Wikipedia's brand of) notability.

Forgive me, but I am not understanding your opposition to noting that of the web portrayals, Cawley's is the most notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe (I'm thinking out loud here) my gripe is with the superlative "most" (in which case, you're right, I was a little off focus earlier) -- that's an extreme I don't see substantiated. I don't know whether there are more notable ones -- Star Trek fanfilms are new enough that probably no one has done a metastudy on their press coverage or some such; lacking that, we need a source that highlights Cawley as the "best" amateur player, or "most successful" (but one that focuses on the actor/performance rather than the clearly notable fan series). And without any sort of adjective in front of notable, it just seems awkward -- "Cawley notably plays Kirk in the Star Trek: Phase II series" is just wordy, akin to the more egregious "It is interesting to note that Cawley plays Kirk" etc. After all, if it weren't notable/significant, we wouldn't mention it, right?

True to my word, I'm going to turn to the googles in a bit and see what I come up with. With Protonk's three-day protection, we'll have plenty of time to phrase it aptly. But first, I'm going to play Halo :-). --EEMIV (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Cawley has been the focus of third-party coverage, rather than his project as a whole. Rather than merely asserting he's worth paying attention to, showing that third-party sources care enough to document him would also be a worthwhile avenue. Again, it's an issue of looking for coverage that divorces Cawley from the project, or at least is focused on his portrayal rather than the series as a whole. Most of what I've seen has focused on real Star Trek people getting involved.... Anyway, I'm looking. --EEMIV (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Better image

The Star Trek VI image of Kirk isn't significantly different, doesn't offer any more substantial information, than the image of him from the pilot; I doubt it meets WP:NFCC. Can someone dig up an image of Chris Pine as Kirk or *sigh* maybe even that fan portrayal? Actually, I imagine a collage of fan portrayals of the characters would be a worthwhile addition. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I could see the gallery sort of thing, but I think that showing Shatner's portrayal of Kirk is represented by the text (you know, that whole 'forty years/four decades' nonsense from before?) Shatner kept revisiting the role and expanding upon it. It would seem worthwhile to use that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's the same headshot/perspective, though, maybe it just doesn't have to be so big, making room for other images. Maybe it can be Photoshopped into a collage of other portrayals. It might make sense to move the ST6 image to the infobox and collagify the TOS image of Shatner -- I'm reluctant about that, though, because the 60s persona/era/portrayal is probably the best known. --EEMIV (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that while Kirk's TOS look is indeed recognizable, there are some pretty strong arguments to be made about how the films, animated series and web-series reintroduced the franchise to successive generations (pardon the pun). Also, showing the durability of the character, despite Shatner's aging, seems an interesting bit.

I think a TOS image, STMP, and one from Generations of Shatner would do, while one of Cawley and Pine might be added to the aforementioned collage. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found a few images I think would work well in a collage: animated, Belushi impression, Cawley; there's also the STVI "end of the road" image already there. I'm looking now for a good picture of Pine as Kirk (most of the promo images are too stylized; hopefully, I can or find a screencap) and some sort of marketing piece -- maybe the new Playmates toys, or some other action-figure type thing. Note to selves: reception section also could use some reference to various action figure depictions, and maybe sales figures on Shatnerverse (if they're amalgamated somewhere...I dunno...I'm iffy on that). --EEMIV (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

There was a ton of stuff floating around about Shatner's (half-?)serious disappointment that Nimoy was cast in the new movie but he wasn't. Most of that, though, I saw via RSS feeds to fan sites -- not exactly reliable sources, although I'm sure they linked back to Variety and whatnot. Googling, though, didn't winnow in on much more-recent material -- anyone have any ideas about where to poke around for this material?
Similarly, interviews with Abrams about re-imagining not so much Star Trek, but this character in particular? --EEMIV (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall some interview wherein Abrams discussed why adding Shatner would have only been for the fanboys, but I agree that the fanblog detritus must be kept out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits

I whacked at this article a bit, substantially trimming down the "Fictional character history"/"Depiction" section by both trimming wordiness and trimming off-screen history/trivia; added some real-world information with references and provided citations for most of the in-universe summary; and created a separate section (needing much expansion with real-world information) for the disparate portrayals of the character. The most substantial trimming was of details about Kirk's Academy days and early assignments -- some specific details about him and ancillary stuff, like the name of his dead captain. Although slimmer, the section continues to remain mostly summary, and still hits the major points; I think all of what I excised was description of events that aren't depicted on screen, and are "one-shot" references, i.e. things thrown in for window-dressing or flavor in one episode, but not built upon or developed afterward. I suppose the bit about calling out Finney for leaving the hatch open could go back in, though... Anyhow, there are a few notes above about possible avenues for expansion for the real-world stuff, and finding a better/different image of the character would be nice. --EEMIV (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud somewhat your verve in trying such, I think that trimming those bits that elaborate on Kirk's actions outside of the films (ie, official novelizations) was a mistake. If they develop out Kirk's background, or at least explain how the authors developed out Kirk's background, that isn't fancruft. That's actually encyclopedic.

Maybe a better way to have proceeded was to perhaps open up lines of discussion here first - presumably, that's how things work here in Wikipedia. That way, you don't have to be concerned with a lot of those changes face reversion or alteration - which is likely to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't remove any of the novelization stuff. I'm not a canon-purist; if there's a depiction I axed, I'm happy for it to go back in. In fact, I seem to recall an earlier iteration that referred to Kirk marrying someone in the Lost Years series -- based on Roddenberry's/Foster's novelization of TMP, and I think would be appropriate here (I think it was culled by someone else). --EEMIV (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected for three days

I've protected the most recent revision of this page (per WP:PROTECT) due to the edit dispute about the nature of coverage the subject should receive. I see some discussion on the talk page but mostly commentary in edit summaries. Please discuss and agree upon changes to the article before inserting them. During the protection, agreed upon changes may be added through the use of {{Editprotected}}. Hopefully three days will be enough to resolve some of the other disputes. In full disclosure, I came here at User:EEMIV's request here. I won't watchlist this page but I will be back off and on to check in. Protonk (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk.

I think the iteration currently protected is User:Globular Cluster1's most recent revision. Unfortunately, Globular Cluster1 has repeatedly reverted both my and User:Arcayne's edits with colorful edit summaries (apparently, despite are heated arguments here and on our respective talk pages, we are socks) but no talk-page discussion. However, it seems there are two areas of contention:

1. how to phrase, if at all, depictions of Kirk in fan films, and whether to single out a particular performance as being notable
2. additional copy edits that trim plot summary

I think the discussion sections already on this page are a sufficient sandbox to discuss these changes. Arcayne and I have settled a bit, and I'm going to look for substantiation that Cawley's performance has been identified by third parties as notable; interested parties can hash it out and contribute in the #Other portrayals section above. As for trimming plot summary, at Arcayne's suggestion (and to back up my sarcastic goading, I suppose) I started the #Copyedits section to invite comment. --EEMIV (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I vastly support EEMIV's edits to the article, which essentially cut out 2 kb of unneeded plot. I would personally like to see much more real-world relevance per Writing about fiction and Weight, and I think this is headed toward that goal. --Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the page protection lifts, one and all are welcome to throw their weight in at User:EEMIV/James T. Kirk. --EEMIV (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting turn of phrase; I always thought it was to 'weigh in' on something. Anyway, I've made an edit to the article sandbox, which sidesteps the 'most notable' of which by addressing the characterization's popularity, and not that it is the most notable (despite the earlier arguments that I made before about the dearth of other notable portrayals). To whit, the resulting edit is thus (bold text marks the alteration of edit):

James Tiberius Kirk is a character in the fictional Star Trek media franchise. First portrayed by William Shatner as the principal lead character the original Star Trek series, Kirk also appears in the animated Star Trek series, the first seven Star Trek movies, and in numerous books, comics, and video games. Chris Pine will play the character in the 2009 Star Trek film, and Kirk has been portrayed by numerous actors in non-studio Star Trek fan productions, the most known of which is James Cawley, of the award-winning Star Trek: Phase II web-series.

Note that I also re-add the fictional descriptive of not the character, but the universe that the character exists within (characters in fictional universes are usually fictional portrayals); this avoids the redundancy of fictional character in a fictional universe".

I would also like to address what I think is a perceptual error in the article, currently under the Portrayals section:

Other actors have portrayed the character in Star Trek fan productions.[9] According to James Cawley, who plays Kirk in the Star Trek: Phase II series, a group of Star Trek: Enterprise writers got Cawley's attention by shouting "Hey, Kirk!" at him.[10][11]

This seems to imply that the idea of portraying Kirk came about after the writers called him Kirk, which isn't the case. The writers called him that because the web series was already in place. I wanted to point that out, and have some agreement before suggestion an alteration - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Arcayne and I have agreed on appropriate phrasing for one point of contention. Globular Cluster again reverted the article to what was 98% his earlier version, using the misleading edit summary suggesting he was highlighting other information -- but instead restored substantial plot summary and removed virtually all real-world sourcing and information. Considering that he declined to participate on the article talk page and his apparent (through his edit history and talk page discussion) sense of ownership of the article, I consider further reversion to be disruptive. --EEMIV (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do as well. It took some compromise to get at where we are currently; if (s)he isn't willing to work with us, I am sure there are some article stubs that (s)he could be expanding upon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New source

I just stumbled on this

[1]

which looks like has some good real-world stuff. --EEMIV (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome link, EEMIV. I am glad that I was wrong about you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a few more good sources on TOS and kirk that are (mostly) web available on my computer at home. Poke me after the 18th and I'll dig them up. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing

Although I appreciate Globular Cluster not once again blanket-reverting the article, and am glad to have the new quote, restoring the lead to its earlier version -- which doesn't reflect consensus, re-introduces basic grammatical flaws like "subsequent...that followed", and inserts random bits of development trivia without citations -- is counterproductive. GC, please propose alterations to the wording here on the talk page before dropping them in. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Mediation (informal)

A request for informal mediation was made here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/James T. Kirk concerning a dispute over edits to the article. It seems that communication between the editors of this page has broken down, so let's see if we can get things up and running again. The user who requested the mediation should go back to the mediation page and fill in some of the header spaces "Who is involved?" and "What solution are you looking for?" so we can get a clearer understanding of what is going on.

Other users are also invited to comment on the mediation talk page- but primarily here. We are all editors together here, we are a team!

So, what's the problem? Gavin (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll find on this talk page and Globular Cluster's talk page the crux of the current content dispute. There was a snide snipefest (initiated by me) on my and Arcayne's talk page over one specific point, although we've fleshed out our issues. GC seems to take exception to his substantial edits being substantially edited upon, although as I articulated above, his most recent array of edits did not fall back into blanket reverting -- so this is progress. I give him a thumbs up for asking for third-party mediation, and hope this is enough to coax him into participating on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is certainly vital if this process is going to work- however, what I am going to do is go over the talk pages of the users involved, this talk page, the article and the mediation page. Hopefully by tomorrow morning (its 00:58 where I am) a few more editors will have stated their views on this topic and we'll be able to really move forward. My job here isn't to take sides- it is to look at all the information and try to offer advice on how you guys can take this forward. However, I note that there is a little history between some of the editors here so don't expect any quick fixes. In the spirit of 'ol Spock, we must adhere to logic and reason in this dialogue. Gavin (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take the time that you need, Gavin. I've just reverted out the large-scale undo of GC1 with an edit that here is the best place to iron out consensus. If he truly feels he is operating at a disadvantage with us, and that we aren't giving him enough good faith, perhaps idscussing why (s)he feels their edits are more on point than the pre-existing statements. Without discussion - as you pointed out, the wiki doesn't work - it just turns into a cited blog, which is about as much mental masturbation as one is going to find outside of Literotica or MySpace. Additionally, not suggesting that EEMIV and I are socks of one another is a pretty good way to engender good faith and polite discourse. Taking the time to learn the rules wouldn't hurt, but (s)he can learn those as they go along - so long as they are prepared to not get pissy when (s)he is called on his/her inevitable mistakes.

Part of the problem - to my reckoning - is that GC1's edits add in-universe info to the article. (S)He has even noted that we need to write this information from the point of view of the universe in which the character inhabits. That is contrary to WP:WAF; in short, we are a neutral encyclopedia, and not a Star Trek wiki or fan forum. A previous argument with the user revolved around "canonicity" of information, which, for the most part, Wikipedia doesn't recognize, citations instead being preeminent.

I'd add more, but I'd like to keep the Wall O' Text to a hoppable size. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For future section

I'd put this line in the portrayals section

A major change in the "reboot" is the depiction of Kirk as "a reckless, bar-fighting rebel".<ref name="scifiwireabrams" />

But that, duh, belongs more in the Depictions section. Right now, though, most of that content focuses on Shatner-Kirk, simply because more's been written about that incarnation. Certainly there are lots of interviews wine Pine, the writers, Abrams about Kirk that we can pluck from, and more will come up as the movie's release grows nearer. But, in the meantime, this line seems out-of-place where it was, and there really isn't material enough in the article to substantate a "Star Trek (2009)" or "Reboot" or "[whatever]" section. So, here it sits until I and/or someone else stars to build it up. --EEMIV (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; we have a citation that speaks a bit to Kirk's reinterpretation, and by Abrams, no less. I think we need to include it.

Additionally, I have some other issues with some of the edits. I changed the subsection from Women (which was just awkward as all get out) to womanizer, which is a better descriptor. Granted, Kirk isn't as much of a mysogynist as James Bond, but out of all the folk who got to kiss the girls, Kirk did it more often than others. And he married none of them, save for the Lost Years novelization. That's a womanizer. If we want to find a different word, then we can discuss it. However, I am fairly firm on this, as we have multiple citations calling the fellow by this descriptor.

Also, I have some fairly significant issues with using quotes from soemone interpreting Kirk's personality in the Lede. It moves us into a more in-universe stance, and we cannot have that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The womanizer thing makes sense -- I hadn't seen the cited source using the term. The Abrams quote, if you want to start a section about the (re-)depiction in store for the movie, would be worth including there. A quote in the lead is perfectly fine: keep in mind that a lead offers a summary of the entire article, and for elements of fiction that sometimes will include plot summary. However, the quote itself isn't so much summary as it is a third-party's interpretation, which is even more apt; and this particular quote is succinct and encapsulates most of the gist of what's in that section. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to start with the last bit first, the Lede does indeed summarize the article. Since it is a third party stating the opinion about Kirk, we need to state who is saying it, so it is established in the Lede and preserves NPOV.

As for the womanizer thing, we don't have the movie yet, so there isn't a point to start a whole new section about how Kirk isn't a womanizer anymore - shya, like that will happen - just yet. The subsection, since it discusses a lasting impression of Kirk's personality, should remain in place and complete. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I'm fine with the "womanizer" header now because I hadn't seen the cited sources before. Done, new paragraph :-) As for new movie stuff, there are lots of interviews and whatnot about the film that could be a good start for expanding the Depiction section to cover the upcoming movie, and the quote about Kirk being a barroom brawler -- and, I think, there's a good follow-up elsewhere about this conflicting with Kirk-as-bookworm impression from TOS -- could be a good start. --EEMIV (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're all on the same page here. Something still remaining to address is the need for a name, stating the leadership qualities int he Lede. Without it, it cannot remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with a source

Can someone please look at this and help me ascertain (maybe by comparing to the Google Books entry -- my free pages have lapsed) whether this is original to the Daily Mail or an excerpt from his book? There's a plug for the book on the page, and the formatting of the article makes me think it might even be a copy-and-paste from a PDF or something, and the content just seems like a bunch of "samplers"...but, nothing on the page actually says it's excerpted from something else, so I dunno. Extra eyeballs, please. --EEMIV (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They are excerpts from the book. Searching one of the statements brings it up in Google Books. Good job, EEMIV. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. There's a <ref name="uptillnow"> for the generic citation if we don't have a page number, and <ref name="uptillnow120"> for the book previous I snagged on -- wait for it -- page 120. --EEMIV (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go, then. Sorry, I should have provided the link for the book. As an aside, did you say that you only get a limited number of Google book viewings? Is that per day, or en toto? I wasn't aware of that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what arrangement the publisher makes with the site. I haven't gone back to poke -- usually when I'm at Google Books, I'm checking whether a student plagiarized, and rarely do I return to the same book twice; only recently have I started poking for specific quotes to insert in articles. I didn't keep track of what pages I could/couldn't look at last time I was poking at his autobiography; it'll take a couple of trips to see whether I can verrrrrrry slooowwwwwwly work through the entire book. --EEMIV (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Mediation (informal)

A request for informal mediation was made here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/James T. Kirk concerning a dispute over edits to the article. It seems that communication between the editors of this page has broken down, so let's see if we can get things up and running again. The user who requested the mediation should go back to the mediation page and fill in some of the header spaces "Who is involved?" and "What solution are you looking for?" so we can get a clearer understanding of what is going on.

Other users are also invited to comment on the mediation talk page- but primarily here. We are all editors together here, we are a team!

So, what's the problem? Gavin (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll find on this talk page and Globular Cluster's talk page the crux of the current content dispute. There was a snide snipefest (initiated by me) on my and Arcayne's talk page over one specific point, although we've fleshed out our issues. GC seems to take exception to his substantial edits being substantially edited upon, although as I articulated above, his most recent array of edits did not fall back into blanket reverting -- so this is progress. I give him a thumbs up for asking for third-party mediation, and hope this is enough to coax him into participating on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is certainly vital if this process is going to work- however, what I am going to do is go over the talk pages of the users involved, this talk page, the article and the mediation page. Hopefully by tomorrow morning (its 00:58 where I am) a few more editors will have stated their views on this topic and we'll be able to really move forward. My job here isn't to take sides- it is to look at all the information and try to offer advice on how you guys can take this forward. However, I note that there is a little history between some of the editors here so don't expect any quick fixes. In the spirit of 'ol Spock, we must adhere to logic and reason in this dialogue. Gavin (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take the time that you need, Gavin. I've just reverted out the large-scale undo of GC1 with an edit that here is the best place to iron out consensus. If he truly feels he is operating at a disadvantage with us, and that we aren't giving him enough good faith, perhaps idscussing why (s)he feels their edits are more on point than the pre-existing statements. Without discussion - as you pointed out, the wiki doesn't work - it just turns into a cited blog, which is about as much mental masturbation as one is going to find outside of Literotica or MySpace. Additionally, not suggesting that EEMIV and I are socks of one another is a pretty good way to engender good faith and polite discourse. Taking the time to learn the rules wouldn't hurt, but (s)he can learn those as they go along - so long as they are prepared to not get pissy when (s)he is called on his/her inevitable mistakes.

Part of the problem - to my reckoning - is that GC1's edits add in-universe info to the article. (S)He has even noted that we need to write this information from the point of view of the universe in which the character inhabits. That is contrary to WP:WAF; in short, we are a neutral encyclopedia, and not a Star Trek wiki or fan forum. A previous argument with the user revolved around "canonicity" of information, which, for the most part, Wikipedia doesn't recognize, citations instead being preeminent.

I'd add more, but I'd like to keep the Wall O' Text to a hoppable size. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be good for you all to know that I am now of the opinion that this dispute is not one that can be mediated- there isn't even anything to mediate over! I think what has gone on is a breakdown in communication and GC1 feels excluded from the writing of the article. He has told me that he is not happy with that conclusion but there is nothing I can do about that. I am going to finalize this mediation today give my recommendations then close it Friday if nothing new comes up. My official recommendation is this: GC1: Please use the talk page to discuss edits you think should be made to the article and pursue consensus rather than edit warring. Other editors please read and take into account GC1's views and try to accommodate them as best as Policy allows. what are the views on that? Gavin (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, Gavin. Thanks for weighing in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently I lost the text of my prior attempt at a response here, which, the way things have been going, doesn't really surprise me.

At any rate, what I had said basically, was that if you and your friend didn't like being called "socks," then the two of you shouldn't have acted in concert to such an extent to appear as such, and that he shouldn't have sought to aggravate the situation further by adding a hypertext link declaring "I'm a sockpuppet" to his User Page, but apparently he gets a sense of satisfaction out of such childish antics.

The two of you are now, suddenly, obsessed with having a "consensus" in order to make changes to the article, yet you showed no such interest when both of you decided to go on an editing rampage just after I got through overhauling it a couple of weeks ago, making your own changes to the article without asking me what I had thought about any of it, and overwriting everything I had done in the process.

Furthermore, I resent your going back to April of last your to bring up the "canonicity" discussion that we had back then as though it were somehow relevant and tied to what's been at issue here since last week, when in actuality it has nothing to do with this most recent dispute. Additionally, your accusation about my supposed interest in adding "in-universe" material is also simply untrue. Prior to my doing an edit overhaul of the entire article, it did not have an "in-universe" advisory/warning as part of its content, nor did I add anything to the Page that would have warranted adding such an advisory because my edit overhaul was principally to correct spelling and grammar problems and not change anything about its content for the most part.

And for the record: I also resent that the case was closed without any input from me here, especially given that I just had to go through the trouble of correcting several false accusations and having to address the injection of issues from ten months ago that had no place even being brought up here because they had absolutely no bearing on this latest dispute. So am I satisfied with the conclusion that was reached and how it was reached in the closing of this case? No, not by a long shot. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review time?

(I broached the subject with EEMIV on his usertalk page,

but in the interest of inclusion, I am opening this up to a wider audience.)

I am thinking that, preparatory to nominating the article for WP:GA, we should get some input on the article via Peer Review. I think that the only sticking point is going to be the collage, but EEMIV seems well on the road to fixing the problematic issues with the nfc issues. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do it to it. Peer review isn't just a pre-requisite to GA/FA, it's an awesome place to get differing varieties of input. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Here's a link to the peer review page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And here are the criteria for both GA and FA articles. It's best we are agreed on having achieved these criteria prior to nomination. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a peer review would be a very good idea at the current time. It would certainly help with the informal mediation, although the mediation isn't about the state of the article as much as WP:OWN breaches (which I have yet to come across) it would certainly help to see what other editors think about the article- especially in reference to the "tinkering" accusation. Gavin (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work by the editors who spruced up the article, I dare someone to AfD it now! Spock would seem a (dare I say it) logical article for someone to chase up next. Alastairward (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See also

The new movie and the three actors receive sufficient focus, attention and context that duplicating the links in a "See also" seems repetitive. Indeed, I can't think of an instance where things linked the lead are also in a "See also" -- the FA Palpatine has no See also, and the entry for Padm%C3%A9_Amidala is to a tangentially related list of. The original list of See alsos -- the main characters in the other Star Trek series, save Picard because he was already mentioned in the article -- was more appropriate, but I left it out because it just duplicates the navbox at the bottom of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll self-revert. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous postings of Kirk

I reverted this removal of Kirk's previous duty postings, as they seem germane to the character. It isn't as if we are going into intimate detail about every fictional decision he has ever made, or listing his fictional military awards (like the "Palm Leaf of Axanar Peace Mission") or whatever. His listed postings all served as plot points in episodes and/or movies. I think it should remain. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot see any reason to keep these past one-mention postings in the infobox. This sort of thing has to be approached from the real-world perspective, the character was created for the role of the captain of the Enterprise and later Enterprise-A. The backstory positions on the Republic, Farragut and at Starfleet Academy aren't the prominent focus of the character, and are thus unnecessary detail for the infobox. While these backstory aspects can be lightly developed in the prose, the infobox should only contain the vital information for a general reader who is unfamilar with Star Trek, and to that end the role of Enterprise captain is vastly above those of trivia such as past postings. Remember that this isn't Memory Alpha, including those previous posts stands the chance of confusing Wikipedia's target audience of the general reader who is unfamiliar with the subject as to the character's purpose. If this was a real person, then perhaps including past posts in the infobox would be necessary, but as this is a fictional character, we must stay focused on the prominent aspects of the character, even in the infobox. The rest of the article does this relatively well. -- Sabre (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point, S@bre. What do other folks think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of trivial, with significant roles/positions bogged down in trivia. Probably it just stems from the infobox label; maybe it should be renamed to "Role" (meh, that's kind of weirdly ambiguous). --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get some input from Globular Cluster 1, as well. He has demonstrated a markedly different viewpoint from the other editors, and he might be able to offer new insights into the article. If he doesn't get back in a reasonable amount of time, I will withdraw my opposition to the postings removal. Sound good? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Whilst we're talking about the infobox though, I've replaced the central image. That pilot image isn't really Kirk's standard appearance, he uses it for only one episode, so I replaced it with one of him in the standard gold uniform used in the majority of episodes. An image of a character in their most common costume is more encyclopedically useful than one of the character in a one-off costume. If someone's got another profile-like image that would be appropriate, with him in the gold uniform or that green tunic he wears on occasion in the later seasons, then feel free to upload that in its place.-- Sabre (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that, and I think your edit summary seemed pretty on-target, as it is here.

Speaking of images, where is the collage image discussion? I would very much like to see that the effort that EEMIV put into creating it not be for naught. Making sure we refer to the different looks in the text goes a way to establishing the usage of the collage.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that Globular Cluster is definitely not interested in working either this article or with improving his/her editing behavior. Therefore, I am not opposed to the removal of the postings in the infobox. I'll do so now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of article

I've been assessing how close this article is to a distribution-quality, and think we are ready to nominate the article for Good Article classification. As per the assessment scale:

• The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status
• Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Films).

As per that, I will be also nominating the article for A-Class as per the multiple projects this article is umbrella'd under. This is to ensure that we have a lot of eyes on the article to get some fresh eyes on and adding to the article as well as getting us all the closer to FAC (which is the actual point of all this encyclopedia-creating).
The weakest part of this article - to my reckoninbg - is the collage image. I think we need some input in the bulletproofing process, so as to prevent it from getting snatched out from under us. I think EEMIV had listed it with NFC, but cannot find the discussion about the image. Can we address this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if someone could do the re-classifying, I am unsure how to do it, and don't want a mistake on my part to impede the progress of the article. In retrospect, it might be more useful to get reclassified before pursuing GA. Thoughts?-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This page walks you through the GAN process, while this one is for A-Class (the latter points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review#A-Class review as a good example of how to do that type of quality assessment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an established procession as to which is done first? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, A-class and GA are independent from each other. However, looking at Wikiproject and category, I don't think that A-class is used (it varies between Wikiprojects to whether they use A-class or not). If you want to push reclassification and promotion of the article forward, your best bet is GAN. You're more likely to get a more detailed review from someone who is entirely impartial towards Star Trek there as well. -- Sabre (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um....definitely not, this article reads terribly, is poorly organized, and the flow make it feel like it was hacked together from a bunch of scrap parts. Considering the subject, that's pretty sad. I noticed there has been a high volume of edits recently that may have contributed to the degradation of the article, and perhaps there was a point in the past when it was a fairly good article, but the article as it is now isn't even close. -Jaardon (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So fix it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the claim that "there was a point in the past when it was a fairly good article" suggests to me he prefers the cruft-laden collection of plot summary and trivia. The article is much better now -- and considering his edit summary was a troll-ish "sucks," his is an opinion worth discounting. Not to say the article can't stand improvement -- certainly it can -- but going to "a point in the past" would be movement in the wrong direction. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a little good faith here, I think. I gave it a read thru, and I have to agree that it does get choppy. --Izno (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's choppy. Which is different than saying it sucks, is pretty sad, hacked together, reads terribly, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I reckon that another paragraph can probably be added to the lead section. The introduction is meant to summarise the entire article, and at present, it lacks on the development and fictional summary side of things: a few very key character plot points should be shoved up there along with a quick overview of character development to help bolster it. See the intro for Khan Noonien Singh for what I mean. -- Sabre (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley

He should not be listed in the people playing Capt. Kirk. This is a FAN film not a real one. That like saying I go on YouTube and act like Neo. Should I be listed as someone who played Neo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, SChaos1701. A bit different from YouTube, Cawley's portrayal is well-documented by reliable, verifiable sources, and is likely one of the reasons why the new film had enough impetus to survive Hollywood development Hell. I am glad you self-reverted your removal, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about. James Crawley doesn't play Captain Kirk in the new film. Chris Pine does. He plays him in a FAN FILM. I move that his name be removed. Fan films don't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying; I apologize for not being clear, and it was largely a feeling, not cited. In point of fact, Wikipedia doesn't pay attention to "canon" (ie. "official" Star Trek universe) while creating and developing articles. We work off of citability, reliability (if source information), notability and verifiability. That Cawley portrays Kirk in the most notable non-Shatner (and now, non-Pine) fulfills these criteria. Are you suggesting that just because it is a fan film, that it is not notable? Could you point out where in Wiki policy and guidelines we do not use notable fan-created media? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roddenbury himself stated that the books were "fiction" and that only what was on the show & the movies were Star Trek "reality". The James Cawley stuff falls under the fiction category because it is fan produced and not canon. He should there for be cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.228.121 (talk • contribs)

Notions of canon violate non-npov. If you can cite a source about Roddenberry's assertion, great -- include it in the article. However, Cawley's performance, and the web series itself, have garnered sufficiently significant third-party coverage that inclusion is warranted. --EEMIV (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quit trying to hijack Captain Kirk's bio with the New Voyages stuff. You obviously have an agenda. It's enough that there is a blurb in the article itself about Cawley, he doesn't need to be put in the "portrayed by" section. That's over the top and completely ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.98.148 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, I objected to including Cawley when rewriting this article. However, Arcayne provided citations to sources indicating significant coverage that warrants inclusion. My "agenda" is to offer a neutral point of view on the subject, and including/excluding content because of a third-party's definition of canon is distinctly non-npov. --EEMIV (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, that isn't true. Fan fiction is not part of the Star Trek canon and should not be included as part of the primary bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.98.148 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the swiftness of your comment, you probably didn't look at the edit history and haven't read through the conversations on this talk page. And, once again: "canon" is a non-npov concept; including or excluding content based solely on Paramount's (or one's own) notion of canon violates policy. Cawley's performance has received significant third-party coverage and warrants inclusion -- note that the myriad other fan fic, fan production and other fan stuff has *not* received such coverage, and consequently isn't presented here. While you might mean well, removal of content based on a non-npov rationale is disruptive. --EEMIV (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You might as well list "A Cartoon" under the portrayed by section if you're going to include James Cawley. He is an insignificant portrayal to Kirk except for a few Trek nerds on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant has reliable sourcing establishing that it's notable? Please, don't use ad hominem in your argument, as it only weakens rather than strengthens it. --Izno (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The animated portrayal is, in fact, an aspect of the article worth expanding; thank you for the suggestion. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The animated portrayal is, in fact, an aspect of the article worth expanding; thank you for the suggestion. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion has gone on over a month and unfortunately, the anon is not yet clear on how Wikipedia doesn't give any weight to fan canon. Canon has no place in Wikipedia. Unless its cited reliably. If the anon wishes to seek a change in policy, the method for doing so is over there, thattaway. Until then, holding off on reverts will be an excellent route to pursue, as they are already at four reverts (as I just pointed out to the anon on his/her talk page). If it happens again, I will file the complaint myself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What sources dictate that Cawley should be included in the "Portrayed By" section. That's the only problem I have with Kirk's bio. Cawley can be included under "depictions" but shouldn't be in the main "portrayed by" section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs)

As has been noted before, while a few different folk have portrayed Kirk, the notable persons belong in the infobox. As Cawley is notable, he belongs there. I am not sure where else in fan films he has been portrayed, but I am guessing none of them have had write-ups done my non-fan-related media outlets. This isn't a pissing contest, and it isn't about canon (and it never should be). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we include notable, verifiable, reliable and neutral information. Canon is none of those things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How have you made the determination that he is as notable as the actor that portrayed him for 30+ years and the new actor which will be portraying him in a movie licensed by those that own the character in the first place? What makes James Cawley more "noteable" than the other actors that have portrayed Kirk in misc film and television? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting he is *as* notable as Shatner (or even Pine) -- that's an undue weight problem. Coverage in the article itself is appropriately balanced to reflect this. Infoboxes are not intended to, and do not, convey "weight" issues; it's simply a listing in this case of actors who's portrayals are notable. But, if it helps you feel better, keep in mind that it's Shatner's iconic image at the very top. --EEMIV (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on in the Captain Kirk page. I have made one change and EEMIV has re-edited it several times. Looking at the page, it appears that EEMIV, Arcayne, and Erikeltic have been arguing over the page all day. Erikeltic is now banned from making changes for 24 hours, but EEMIV and Arcayne are not. Somebody please block them for 24 hours as well because they have actually edited the page more than Erikeltic did. FWIW, I agree with Erikeltic's edit and there needs to be a balanced and fair discussion about the Cawley issue. Despite what both of these people may believe, they do not own the Captain Kirk character. Paramount owns Kirk and Cawley is not canon or significant enough to warrant being included in Kirk's main bio.66.152.150.16 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion for repeated statements from multiple editors that Paramount's, or any other person's/group's, notions of "canon" does not mesh with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Cawley's performance has received sufficient third-party coverage to warrant inclusion in the article; the scope of his performance's inclusion in the article proportional to his significance in relation to Shatner and Pine. If Cawley's performance wasn't the subject of third-party coverage, then it wouldn't be included; if other actor's coverage is subject to significant third-party coverage, the article will be expanded to include it. Canon doesn't matter here; perhaps you'd be more comfortable at Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget John Belushi

If Cawley is in the box, why not John Belushi? I can definitely find independent reliable sources discussing his portrayal of James T. Kirk,[2][3] which was seen by many more people than Cawley's portrayal. THF (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think satires of a character are what the "portrayal" parts of character infoboxes have in mind. But please add whatever you can to the reaction part (which is what Belushi's portral is part of) of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is fan-fiction seen by a few thousand in the infobox, but satires seen by tens of millions (and talked about decades later) not? Either the dividing line is "Every notable performance" or the dividing line is something else, and I fail to see a dividing line that puts in Cawley but leaves out Belushi. THF (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the comedic bits and sketches are not intended as serious characterizations of the fictional person, but rather riffs on the Shatner Acting Method. No one - and I mean no one considers these to be in-depth portrayals of who the fictional character are. I agree that notable commentary on these are worthy of mentioning, but not in the infobox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one considers Cawley an "in-depth portrayal." They consider it a "Hey, isn't that weird" human interest story, and he squeaks into Wikipedia because there have been two of them. Carrey's version and Belushi's version has gotten more coverage in books and media than Cawley's version--Carrey's version actually leads off an academic book about Star Trek. THF (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, adjust your tone, THF; you'll get doused getting into a pissing match with me. Secondly, Cawley's is the only serious portrayal of the character outside of Shatner's and (presumably) Pine's. As the character is being portrayed and not the Shatner impression, it is most certainly a lot more in-depth portrayal than say, Carol Burnett or John Belushi. Belushi and Carrey's portrayal have had perhaps more media coverage, but that is - and this is important - because they are John Belushi and Jim Carrey. At the very best, they were doing a bit; at worst, a comedic bit. Neither constitutes a true/sincere portrayal. And clearly, the only reason why Carrey's comedic riff on Shatner's portrayal made it into a Star Trek book is that it was current at the time of the book's publishing. Had the book been published during Belushi's portrayal, there would have doubtless been a mention of that. That's mostly moot, though; I was just showing the flaw in your logic, which still seems to be seeking a foothold for canonicity. In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I find such discussions of canonicity to be the Cure to Insomnia™; and baseball bat them every time they rear their ugly little heads here in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a darn about canon. I haven't seen a Star Trek episode or movie in six or seven years, unless you count the Futurama satires. I do care about this strange POV-pushing for the notability of Cawley, whose performance is not taken seriously, as I feel it hurts the credibility of the encyclopedia. His performance is objectively less notable than Carrey's or Belushi's, or Bennett's cameo in the upcoming movie, or even the Futurama episode-within-an-episode. THF (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Separately, your claim that Carrey's portrayal was "current" is not accurate: it was six years old when included in the book. THF (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point, and I am getting bored with having to explain it to you repeatedly. Your posts on this subject demonstrate a distinct lack of neutrality where Cawley is concerned, and I believe that might be clouding your judgment here. There is a difference between actually playing the part, and playing a satire. We do not consider satire, riffs comedic bits or sketches - all based on a single actor's characterization (and not the character himself) - an evaluation of the character. Cawley could be a gas station attendant or a rodeo clown to pay the bill; it doesn't mitigate that he has portrayed - seriously - the only characterization of Kirk outside of Shatner. We have citation for this role in the mainstream media. The logic is sound, the criteria for inclusion is met. I urge you to stop beating a dead horse. I hate the film Highlander 2; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't notable.

We also do not typically list in the infobox actors portraying the character at different stages of their life - you are welcome to provide FA examples of this, though, and I might reconsider this view. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley's William Shatner impersonation of James T. Kirk (down mimicing Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines) is a borderline parody by most accounts. Cawley organized and operates the "production" team that does Phase II, so the fact that he is playing Captain Kirk online was decided by himself and himself alone. He is just a hobbiest who has received some attention on special interest pieces. James Cawley was also part of the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier group. That storyline has not been included in the main Star Trek article, while Phase II (for some unknown reason) has been included. It makes no sense whatsoever to include fan fiction in the primary bio. Furthermore, none of the other Star Trek characters (except Spock) have the fan-actors listed in the "Portrayed By" box item. This included all the characters in Phase II, as well as the Next Generation characters that were replayed on Hidden Frontier (see Wesley Crusher for an example). Marfoir (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Carrey

Jim Carrey's portrayal, unlike that of Pine or Cawley, has been covered in an academic book about Star Trek, so shouldn't be deleted. THF (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to cite that, pls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article. Look it up. THF (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it. It belongs in the article, not the infobox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that IMDB.com's Captain Kirk character bio lists all actors that played Captain Kirk, including the spoofs. My opinion remains that it should be only licensed studio actors in the biography box, otherwise all actors (including spoofs) must be given equal treament in order for this Wiki to remain neutral. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001448/ Erikeltic (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Defining the scope of the infobox

I can see an argument for "Just mainstream portrayals" (i.e., Shatner, Pine); I can see an argument for "Every performance seen by more than X people" (Shatner, Pine, maybe Belushi, maybe Carrey); and I can see an argument for "Every notable performance" (Shatner, Pine, Belushi, Cawley, maybe Carrey). What do others think? THF (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the dividing line is not between audience size but rather whether (in this case) the performance is supposed to be of the character or a satire of the character. Satire is a response to source material. I clicked through a sampling of some TV and book characters who've been spoofed on SNL and comedies, and none of them include spoof information anywhere other than the reaction/commentary section.

I'd definitely object to "portrayals scene by X #" because X would both be arbitrary and hard to measure. We also need to avoid conflating the performer's notability with the notability of the performance itself. The two links you provided above, for example, mention Belushi's performance as Kirk in passing (at least from what I can tell from the CT blurb); the article on Cawley offers specific commentary on his performance as this character.

I figure if the performance of the character is significant enough to garner third-party coverage of its development and conception, then it's worth including in the infobox (this after some wrangling with Arcayne; I think I deleted it myself a few times before realizing it was odd to include Cawley in the text but not the infobox). Whether a satirical response to the character belongs in the infobox as a "portrayal" or some other label, I'm not sure. But, I'll pass this question along the films wikiproject (any other ideas?) for broader comment. --EEMIV (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly fair to penalize Belushi or Carrey for being sufficiently talented and versatile that their portrayal of Kirk is mentioned in conjunction with their other roles or in the context of their entire career, just because Cawley, who squeaks over the WP:N bar by the skin of his teeth by virtue of two "Isn't that weird?" stories about his Kirk portrayal that don't take his performance qua performance seriously. THF (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do any of these other actors include "fan-fiction" in the "portrayal"? If it's included at all, it's usually segregated in its own little section at the end of the article. Harry Potter (character) doesn't even mention the notable audio-book portrayal of him in his infobox. THF (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the question to include that. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't & that's a good point. It should only be mainstream portrayals, which in this case is Shatner & Pine. Otherwise you will have to include everyone.66.152.150.16 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a specious claim: information must be cited to reliable sources; the idea that "if you list one, you need to list everyone" is flimsy. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense.... but we will have to make sure we update every single Star Trek character on Wikipedia to include all possible actors. Dr. McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Checkov, and Sulu's bios only show the mainstream actors that played them. So I guess we'll have to make sure we include everyone on those bios as well....66.152.150.16 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If other actors have offered performances significant enough to garner third-party coverage, then they should be included. But, again, the idea that articles should be expanded to include all performances is zany; I don't think anyone is advocating it. --EEMIV (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Question_about_character_spoofs_and_non-studio_portrayals
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Question_about_character_spoofs.2Fsatires_and_non-studio_portrayals

User:Bignole and User:sgeureka have weighed in with what seems to be the suggestion that "portrayals" be limited to studio-sanction performances. I'm ambivalent about it (just a few weeks ago, I was also excising Cawley from the infobox), but would like to hear User:Arcayne's input, since he's also been heavily involved in maintaining this article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As you may recall, that is what Erikeltic & I both wanted from the beginning. That being stated, Jimmy Bennett is listed as playing a young James T. Kirk in the up-coming film. And would somebody please ask EEMIV (talk · contribs) to stop deleting my discussion posts? My requests on that subject have been ignored, thanks.

No kidding. See what can happen when you/Erikeltic initiate and participate in a talk-page conversation, rather than dropping "wiki nazi" aspersions and sarcastic "ooh, let's include Carol Burnett, too" nonsense? You sometimes get somewhere. Regardless, Arcayne is more attuned to Cawley and related sources and probably has thoughts on the topic.

As for your comments, sarcastic trolling have no place on this or on users' talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather addressed this a little earlier in a sub-section response to THF: While the Lede is an overview and summary of the subject, the infobox serves as - for lack of a better analogy - an index card of the article. As space is specifically limited, we only include that information which is especially notable. This article is about the fictional character JTK, the infobox should contain those bits that render insight and understanding into the character. Additionally, they have to meet our criteria for inclusion, without providing undue weight. Comedic 'bits' and sketches are not intended as serious characterizations of the fictional person, but rather riffs on the Shatner Acting Method - I absolutely dare anyone here to controvert that statement, as Shatner's portrayal essentially made anyone portraying Kirk - as Chris Pine notes in the article - mimic Shatner. No one - and I mean no one considers the comedy sketches to be in-depth portrayals of who the fictional character actually is. I agree that notable commentary on these are worthy of mentioning, but not in the infobox. Shatner, Cawley and Pine (listed in chronological order of portrayal here) didn't use the role as a rim-shot. Everyone else, from the Great Carol Burnett to Jim Carrey, interpreted the role a la Shatner. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley is also a Shatner impersonator (his profession is as an Elvis impersonator). Bignole and Sgeureka have both stated in Wiki-TV that they do not feel non-studio actors should be included with any more weight than spoofing actors. James Cawley should be removed from the bio box. In addition, please explain further how 4 Internet-only webisodes are more "in-depth" portrayals of Captain Kirk? Finally, IMDB lists Jimmy Bennett as playing James T. Kirk in the upcoming movie (along with Chris Pine). Why have you removed his name from the bio box? 24.115.224.131 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep adding that bit about Cawley being an Elvis impersonator as if it were the kiss of death; it isn't. It isn't as if Cawley has launched into Jailhouse Rock mid-episode, or some such nonsense. If you feel that having such as a job somehow eliminates his portrayal of Kirk as genuine, consider that Shatner played TJ Hooker (I refuse to consider that a portrayal), and that Pine's biggest gig before Star Trek was in the tweener film Princess Diaries 2. Let's not get elitist here.

As well, you seem to be forgetting that that there are more than 4 webisodes, and that Cawley has actually been playing the role of Kirk longer than anyone except, of course, Shatner. I'd point out that the webisodes have the blessing of Paramount, and many of the previous actors from TOC have already made or have been contracted to appear in the series. We don't put on blinders because it is a fan series; it gets evaluated for notability just like everything else, and our personal preferences have to be left at the door.

Lastly, are you serious? You want to list a child actor who plays Kirk at a young age? No, I mean, really?? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The webisodes do not have the "blessing" of Paramount. They have the "tolerance" of Paramount, which has chosen not to litigate the scope of fair-use rights for non-commercial fan fiction, which they recognize serves to further market their own product. Cawley is barely by-the-skin-of-his-teeth notable; his little-seen webisodes are not reviewed by TV critics or film critics; they appear in the press only by virtue of human-interest stories. This article gives far too much WEIGHT to Cawley's hobby. THF (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A few random notes, since I'm half-torn and half-apathetic about whether to include Cawley in the infobox.

• The duration of the web series is more an artifact of the slow production schedule/resources than of the show's longevity, popularity, etc.
• I'd be perfectly fine reworking the infobox to labeling it "studio portrayals".
• The only thing I'm adamant about is that satires/spoofs of a character are not the character itself, and warrant inclusion not in the development/portrayals section but rather in the pop. culture/impact section.

That's it. A couple of months ago, I opposed including references to vanity content (e.g. fan productions), but its verifiability swayed me. I reverted yesterday's obnoxious series of removals mainly because the Erik/IP editor failed to engage in WP:BRD. Bignole and Sgeureka hold a lot of weight with me, and their input/involvement with the TV/films wikiproject as a whole emphasizes it even more. But, what (not to) include in an infobox is insignificant enough in relation to the article as a whole that I'm going to step away from this discussion now. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if one was follow the Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or Enterprise "script guidelines" (which I have a copies of in my library and can reproduce here if necessary) not one single episode of Phase II follows these guidelines. During the entire run of The Next Generation through Enterprise, fans were able to submit their scripts to Lolita Fatjo but were required to follow the rules within the scripting guidelines. Aside from some nifty special effects, the only thing that makes Phase II notable as a "Trek entity" is the campy way in which it reuses some actors and writers from yester-Trek. This is not originality, but rather at worst a parody or at best a gimmick to generate publicity. The cast and crew of this web series should be praised for their efforts, but at the end of the day the Phase II efforts result in low-budget, "off the reservation", gimmick-Trek. So if we are to include one parody (albeit a popular one) then it is my opinion we cannot exclude other parodies.

The wiki for Captain Kirk will then look more like the imdb.com listing for the character. Rather than do that I think we should draw a line in the sand and follow the guidelines spelled out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Question_about_character_spoofs_and_non-studio_portrayals and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Question_about_character_spoofs.2Fsatires_and_non-studio_portrayals and only include studio actors. The impact of this decision will extend beyond Captain Kirk, so it is actually an important issue and not WP:Lame.

At this point, I think it is safe to say that most of the contributors and administrators here feel the same way and that James Cawley does not belong in the biography box or within the main biography here. James Cawley's name should go under any "cultural impact" section that develops. In addition, once this issue is behind us everyone involed (Arcayne to EEMIV to THF) will need to work together to clean up this article. Can we start planning for that soon? Marfoir (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can show us these "script guidelines" at some independent verifiable site, your reposting them here smacks of original research. It's also irrelevant to the discussion here, as that refers to the hiring procedures of a separate entity. I'm sure the Nebula-nominated writers of one Phase II episode would be pleased to know they fail your personal qualifications for what counts. I'm all for WP:AGF, buy your comments about "campy", "parody", and "gimmick" in relation to Phase II really test that. Despite your personal opinion, the series is not a parody. I personally have no problem with Cawley's inclusion - his series and his portrayals of Kirk have gone far beyond fan films, both from fan acceptance and media reportage (many of which I linked last night at the AFD discussion). MikeWazowski (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can review the script guidelines for the first season of The Next Generation right here: http://home.arcor.de/mdoege/tng_bible.html Specifically, I would draw your attention to the "what doesn't work" section. This section appeared in every Star Trek Writers/Directors guide published and should be given serious consideration here. I would be more than happy to give you an episode-by-episode breakdown of how Phase II has violated the writing standards set forth by the studio, but WP:AGF tells me that you can figure it out for yourself pretty clearly. So aside from the fact that Cawley's work is fan fiction, the fiction itself shouldn't be classified with the same weight as studio-sanctioned Star Trek for all of the reasons listed in this discussion and now (as I am trying to demonstrate) because their stories do not follow the guidelines of what "makes Star Trek, Star Trek." Marfoir (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The link you posted is a writer's guide published during the pre-production of The Next Generation (based on the referenced date of March 23, 1987 on the page) - there's noting at that link to suggest (as you claim) that this section "appeared in every Star Trek Writers/Directors guide published" - that's unsourced for now, but still irrelevant to the discussion - since Phase II is set during the original series, "what doesn't work" for TNG doesn't mean much.

However, since you brought it up, many of those guidelines were often broken by TNG (and later) writers - specifially the ones about not using TOS characters (the pilot, the Scotty episode, the Spock and Sarek episodes), the one "where our technology breaks down in order to create a jeopardy" (most holodeck episodes), the one about not using "warfare with Klingons or Romulans and no stories with Vulcans" (plenty), and about how "STAR TREK is not melodrama". Does that mean that, since by your definition some episodes of TNG don't follow their own guidelines, we should start discounting certain studio-sanctioned episodes "because their stories do not follow the guidelines of what 'makes Star Trek, Star Trek'"? MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In each of those instances a studio writer wrote the script. The guidlines I listed are related to fan-written scripts. While this might be a TNG guide, I can tell you with certainty (because I own the others) that each subsequent series had similar guides. Setting that aside for the time being, let's just look at the guide we have available through a third party. It would seem reasonable that the studio's intent was that fan submissions follow certain criteria and formatting guidelines. Of course studio writers can "break the rules" they have set for fans. The reason for that is studio work carries more weight than fan submissions. Your claim that Phase II is immune from these guidelines because their subject matter is TOS is spurious and illogical. It was produced after the introduction of these guidelines and should be subject to them. Marfoir (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the Simon & Schuster's novel submission guidelines http://www.simonandschuster.net/content/feature.cfm?feature_id=439&tab=24 . Two things caught my eye here "No mixing of casts, which means no plots that mix the characters from one series with those of another" and "No time travel or alternate universe stories"... and with just those two "don'ts" I just described most of the New Voyages/ Phase II storylines. Not to mention the "No explicit sexual descriptions" rule: which if you watch the new trailer for the latest webisode, the two men rolling around in bed together pretty obviously breaks that rule too. So once again, Phase II is one group's hobby and their actors should not be included in primary character biographies.Marfoir (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reading, the original writer's guide link you posted appears to be the actual series writer's bible - these guidelines supposedly apply to *all* writers - there's no reference at the link to fan written scripts and/or submissions. There's also no differentiation between "fan" and "studio" writers at the first link you provided. Any fan that submitted a script that was subsequently produced would immediately become a "studio" writer (of which there were several, like Dennis Bailey (Tim Man, First Contact) and James Brooks (Rightful Heir), for starters), which muddies the issue. Furthermore, you now appear to be trying to apply guidelines for licensed print fiction (an entirely different arena) to Phase II, as opposed to screen story guidelines. However, as I've seen the Phase II episode you brought up, the scene you reference is hardly explicit - no more so than any heterosexual scene shown to date in the various series, or the new trailer (which is both a time travel AND and alternate universe story, FWIW). Also, I never claimed that Phase II was "immune" from those guidelines - please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. What I said was that those guidelines were written for TNG by its producers - Phase II, as a separate production, is free to use whatever guidelines its producers wish, no matter what you believe "real" Trek should or shouldn't be. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The point remains that Cawley & Company should not be included in the main biographies for Star Trek characters for many reasons, including the fact that the writing on the show doesn't qualify the stories as Star Trek by most accounts (for both print & film). You have addressed the exceptions to the rules, whereas virtually every episode of Phase II has ignored thoese guidelines and the exception is the rule. Cawley & Company should not be included in the bio section. Marfoir (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm glad you brought up Dennis Bailey. He was the the writer for TOS-esque Trek fan film Starship Exeter: The Tressaurian Intersection. If you have never watched that fan film, I suggest you do so. Aside from the fact that the story is about new characters (which I actually find refreshing) they actually follow the writing guidelines (excluding the "no new characters" rule). Now even though Bailey follows those guidelines with Exeter and the show is really good IMHO, I would still be opposed to include the crew of the Starship Exeter in any primary Trek wikis. Marfoir (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I love your line of reasoning - stating your opinions as facts, and this idea, paraphrased: "except for the fact they violate the guidelines, they follow the guidelines." Thank you for the "insight" into your thinking. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've only followed a portion of this exchange, but Marfoir is right: Cawley's work and his episodes are not professional productions, yet you and others here are apparently determined to see to it that they receive equal weight when they simply do not measure up and do not belong in the same class and should not be recognized here as though they are somehow worthy of such equal or near-equal consideration. They are amateur productions, pure and simple -- Yes, money was spent on them to produce the sets and to pay the actors and to provide special effects, but they are nevertheless unsanctioned, unlicensed, unrecognized works of derivative amateur fiction. They have not been televised anywhere, nor will they be televised anywhere, no books or DVDs have been produced or sold anywhere, and they are simply a different animal not comparable to the original works on which they are all based. If you like Cawley's work, that's fine. If you think he's deserving of recognition for his efforts, that too is also fine, but he's gotten it, on the Internet, which is as it should be, since his productions are strictly fan fiction available to anyone with a computer, but which are in no way recognized by the Studio. So to argue that his name should be cited along side William Shatner's for having played the role of Kirk is simply ridiculous. However, if you do want his name mentioned somewhere within the article, then Marfoir is right again, because if it belongs anywhere, it would in the "cultural impact" section--period. And that's about it. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't one of the overwhelming criterion for including a subject in an article, wherever in the article that may be, notability? Production value, quality of performance, cannon, licencing are all irrelavant if notability can be established, right? Phase II is notable because it's been mentioned by notable sources and has even featured some of the original series cast members. It's neither a swipe, nor a parody, but a serious endevour to fill in Trek history, and is of significant note quite unlike any other fan series out there. Sure, it's unprecedented, but the policy isn't. He's an actor who's portrayed the character of Kirk in a significant manner. For the info box or anywhere else, that's all that should matter. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it about Cawley's "notability" in relation to his Internet fan series that supposedly qualifies his inclusion in the article beyond "cultural impact"?

As I pointed out in my previous message, "Phase II," or "New Voyages" as it was previously called, fails to compare with the actual franchise on so many levels that therefore don't warrant its inclusion in the overall broader context of the article in the way you would apparently prefer and are arguing for. Can it really be argued that Cawley's series isn't a result of "cultural impact" and that it didn't come about because of it? What then is the problem, and why isn't that section of the article therefore not enough to satisfy you? A fan series does not and should not warrant the same kind of attention as the original source material. It would be one thing if we were talking about a situation like the new Battlestar Galactica versus the old Battlestar Galactica, both Studio produced for mainstream audiences, mainly for television. That would be a valid argument. But you're going well beyond that: you want to compare a derivative Internet fan series with a four decade plus old franchise as though they're the same thing when they're not. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) I appreciate what you are saying, GC1, but you mistaken if you are of the impression that canonicity has any place in Wikipedia. It didn't the last time you argued for canonicity and, unless a major shift has occurred, it still isn't. It is your opinion that the fan series "fails to compare with the actual franchise on so many levels that therefore don't warrant its inclusion" - unless you have a citation for that precise statement. As I am pretty sure you don't, you are therefore stating your own opinion and person al preference. I think you can recall how little weight Wikipedia gives to that sort of thing, right?

Whether the subject of an article is in interpreted via novel, film, tv or radio show, each interpretation that deals directly with the character is given equal weight. Now granted, in most of those cases, they are licensed products. Star Trek fan films are allowed by Paramount with the caveat that they do not profit from them. They lend tremendous amounts of assistance to the best of these (such as ST:P2) - and I think its fairly clear that - considering the level of TOS cast and crew involvement in the aforementioned series - it is indeed the more notable of the fan films. But that's an aside, addressing what I see as a rather unpleasant discrimination towards fan films simple because they are fan films.

The matter is brilliantly simple, not matter how much some might wish to complex it up: only three people have undertaken the characterization of Kirk, and as such should be noted. Since the fan series from which one of the actors listed hails is indeed notable and cited, we are not lending undue weight to his inclusion. And frankly, undue weight was the only true matter to consider here. Since we have neatly avoided that, I am not sure what the impediment is here. Clearly, some have problems with including fan series, seeing their inclusion as a slickly paved path to perdition (thanks Alliteration Academy™!); considering the fanboi-ish quality of some, it isn't hard to understand why. If all fan films were as consistently well made as ST:P2 (or ST:Exeter for that matter), I think a lot of folk would be a lot more comfortable with allowing for them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to hit on several of your quotes (in bold text) so as to address them directly . . .

(?dent) I appreciate what you are saying, GC1, but you mistaken if you are of the impression that canonicity has any place in Wikipedia. It didn't the last time you argued for canonicity and, unless a major shift has occurred, it still isn't. --Arcayne, being his usual charming self.

What's very amusing to me here is that I didn't even reference "canonicity" in either of my last two messages. To me it's not even the issue, unless you care to make it one, and I'm forced to conclude that you're attempting to muddy the real issue by bringing it up.

It is your opinion that the fan series "fails to compare with the actual franchise on so many levels that therefore don't warrant its inclusion" - unless you have a citation for that precise statement.

And here you're desperately attempting to use Wikipedia Guidelines (as usual I might add) as a means of trying to negate a point of view that you refuse to agree with, however, a "citation" is not needed because I used factual examples as to why the two simply do not compare and are not on the same level. Beyond that, you've also taken my comment deliberately out of context, and for that reason I should stop corresponding with you right here and now because you've once again done it for the purpose of trying to skew the real issue.

Whether the subject of an article is in interpreted via novel, film, tv or radio show, each interpretation that deals directly with the character is given equal weight.

Why didn't you mention the Internet along with "novel, film, tv" and "radio"? I'll tell you why --because the other four involve actual licensing and proprietary publishing rights, whereas what often gets put up on the Internet is not "published" or copyrighted and licensed, but rather "posted" in contrast.

And for the record here, you DO want to include Cawley's Internet fan films with the actual "Star Trek" franchise as though both are deserving of "equal weight," which is patently ridiculous and does the actual franchise, and William Shatner as a professional actor who portrayed the Kirk character over the course of four decades in professional studio productions, not only a real disservice, but also reflects poorly on Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia.

The matter is brilliantly simple, not matter how much some might wish to complex it up

Geez, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, as they say . . .

only three people have undertaken the characterization of Kirk, and as such should be noted.

No one has said Cawley shouldn't be included in the article. It's the manner in which you want to include him that many people disagree with. Perhaps it's time to seek a consensus on the matter. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, your statement "Clearly, some have problems with including fan series" should be change to read most editors have problems with including the fan series. The only undue weight argument I see here is the promotion of ST: New Voyages based on citations in science fiction magazines and two mainstream special interest pieces. In addition, I do not have any bias against fan films. I just feel that the actors in those productions don't belong outside of the cultural impact section, regardless of how well received their fan production is. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Marfoir (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You state: "I don't have any bias against fan films" and then, only two sentences later, you refer to them as pigs. Thanks for reinforcing my point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

His example was somewhat crude, but legitimate in the context of his overall point nonetheless. The two simply are not in the same class and should not be treated as though they are. There's no reason why Cawley's derivative works can not be included substantively in the "cultural impact" section of the article. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Crude or not, it was a telling slip. And I am sorry, I seem to recall asking whether you had something in the way of citation, or was your assessment of the quality of the fan film based on your own, deeply-held personal belief? 'Coz, we don't really cotton to those here. As for adding to the cultural impact section, please - feel free to get cracking on that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)