Talk:List of Star Trek films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Star Trek: Axanar

Star Trek: Axanar should be removed from the article. It isn't part of the "reboot" series (where it is currently sitting), and it is a fan film, therefore not part of the film franchise. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I support its removal. It looks like promotion (sourced to Kickstarter and a fansite). Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that move. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with removal.AbramTerger (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree to. A fan made film doesn't belong here SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Home video

==Home video== The Star Trek films were the first media in the franchise to be released on DVD. The second through ninth films were issued in "vanilla versions," with their trailers being their only special features. The tenth film was the only film to have a single-disc release with a variety of special features. In 2001, Paramount Pictures re-released the first film on DVD, which was redone with new computerized special effects to better satisfy the vision of Robert Wise. The Director's Edition was an enormous success and Paramount eventually re-released the rest of the films on two-disc special edition DVDs. The second and sixth film in these special editions were slightly extended. The original theatrical versions were only on the basic DVDs and Blu-rays. The DVD special editions of the first ten films were issued in sets as well, including all ten, the first six, and the last four. The films were released on Blu-ray, with the original cast's films and The Next Generation's released in separate collections.

No reboot

The current film series is not a reboot, since it takes the original continuity as a starting point and shares characters with it. 24.149.42.18 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It is functionally a reboot, as a film industry usage. It also doesn't take place in the same physical universe as the original films, since the physics of Star Trek are radically different in the JJ Abrams universe (so this would be some Alternate Spock falling in time into an Alternate Federation); (how is this evident? ST:Enterprise and TOS shows ships at warp firing on one another, and detecting and maneuvering at warp, this isn't possible in JJ's universe, so it is literally set in an alternate universe (like those thousands of Worfs in one TNG episode) ) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Labeling "reboot series" the Kelvin Timeline

I recently had an edit reverted renaming "The reboot series" to "The Kelvin Universe".

"Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond occur in a separate timeline from the rest of the series. In June 2016, to keep fans from confusing the old continuity from the new, Paramount officially has named the Star Trek films produced by J.J. Abrams as part of "Kelvin Timeline". Former names for this universe have included the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", "NuTrek", the alternate timeline and the reboot series."

According the the reverter, "Discussed years ago, consensus was to identify this films as the Reboot series"

This would normally be true, however, if you look at the sources, this is Paramount's official name for this timeline. If this was the consensus "years ago", and this official name only was announced a month ago, we should reopen the debate. Oldag07 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

New information, therefore a new consensus required. Since the official line is that it is the Kelvin timeline, that should be the terminology used. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't really say that it is Paramount's official name. It is the name being used by the Star Trek Online game and the updated Encyclopedia. But both are very different than Paramount giving it an 'official' name. Is there an official press release from Paramount about this? When this was originally discussed and debated several years ago, it was agreed that WP:COMMONNAME applied. Other than hardcore Trek fans, most users would be confused by any term other than 'Reboot' because that is how most regard the new films. Wikipedia is not for hardcore fans of any franchise, it is for everyone so the label should be something that everyone would understand and not be confused by. References to the name 'Kelvin Timeline' are fine within individual sections but those section in the articles and templates should continue to follow WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources, fair enough.

More sources that confirm the name change.

• [1] IGN
• [2] Geek.com

Sources that use the term "Kelvin Timeline" as a term.

• Explore The Kelvin Timeline[3] Startrek.com
• Will Star Trek 4 Wipe Out The Kelvin Timeline Completely?[4]
• J.J. Abrams Says ‘Star Trek 4’ Has the Best Story of the Kelvin Timeline [5]

On top of these sources, the original term "Reboot universe" is not technically correct as shown in the previous discussion. Memory alpha calls it "Alternate Universe". Several sources use varations of JJ Abrams' name. Reboot universe is a wikipedia made up name. Oldag07 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not just more sources, it is the quality of the sources and reading what they say. None of the say that Paramount Pictures, which produces the films, has officially adopted this name. Even the article titled "J.J. Abrams Says ‘Star Trek 4’ Has the Best Story of the Kelvin Timeline", doesn't produce a quote with Abrams using the term 'Kelvin Timeline'. It is a name adopted by CBS for the game Star Trek Online. As stated in one article by Holly Amos of CBS Consumer Products, who said they "needed an in-universe term since we needed some way to refer to it in the encyclopedia." Typically Wikipedia does not use in-universe descriptions. So it is a named not adopted by Paramount Picture but by a separate company for a video game. Also, just because some blogs and websites are now using the name doesn't mean the majority use that term. Many, many more still refer to the new films as a reboot. That is their WP:COMMONNAME, not something made up by Wikipedia. So there is also a WP:WEIGHT argument, in that minority views should not be given undue weight. That said, the name 'Kelvin Timeline' should be referenced in the various articles in context of both the game and encyclopedia, we do want to provide readers with as much information as possible. However, it cannot be said that Paramount has officially adopted the name because none of the sources bear that out. Nor should the template or sections in the articles be retitled in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment "The Kelvin Timeline" does seem to be the official name since it is now being used on the official Star Trek website. As for whether we use it here, I believe we should. SonOfThornhill is quite correct in that by and large sources refer to the series as a "reboot", but WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here. It is an article titling policy, and does not govern internal article content. The reason we choose common names over official names for article titles is simply so that pages can be more easily found on Wikipedia. If the debate was about whether we should call an article "Star Trek reboot series" or "Star Trek Kelvin Timeline" then policy dictates we select the former. That is not the case here though; whether we refer to the series by its informal common name or the new official name within the article is of no help to readers searching for the article. Since "reboot" is something of a misnomer anyway (the series is more of a sideways step than a fresh start) I think using the official name for internal article reference would be the better and correct option. That said, the informal titles (reboot series/alternate reality series) should still be mentioned in the appropriate section to prevent any potential confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry Betty but you're very first statement is just not true. The article you linked to refers to Star Trek online, the computer game. There is nothing else on that site that uses that name. It's just one article about a computer game. It cannot be considered an "official" name on that very thin basis. And while WP:COMMONNAME does refer to article titles, it was determined several years ago when this issue was first discussed that WP:COMMONNAME did apply here to the template and section header in articles. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just hardcore fans of a franchise, using anything other than the term reboot would be confusing to non or casual fans. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, I strongly disagree with the argument that a "majority of sources" do not use the terminology "The Kelvin Timeline" and thus the policy of WP:WEIGHT applies. Doing a google search just for news articles with the query, "kelvin timeline" "star trek", brings up 1,590 results as of the time this entry was written.[6] This isn't 6-7 blogs using the term. Many of these are mainstream media sources. These mainstream sources stating this is "the official name" of the new timeline, not using it in passing. As for this not being offficially announced by CBS and Paramount, these sources are quoting Holly Amos of CBS Consumer Products. No effort by CBS or Paramount to retract the statement, and it has had almost a month to do so. Moreover, considering the fact that the term hasn't been official for all but a month and the alternate timeline series has befen around since 2009 there is reason to believe that the terminology will have a greater use in the future.
  The more important question, that I believe SonOfThornhill is alluding to, is how do we mention the fact that the reboot series is now called the Kelvin timeline without confusing the average reader. One should assume that after several more months of use this will become less of an issue. As of now, the note that I made in the Star Trek article is a step in the right direction. As Betty Logan has mention, continuing the use of the the informal titles should also be used. Is there any other suggestions?Oldag07 (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  And if you were to put in Star Trek Reboot in a google search you get 24,300,000 results. So it is 24,300,000 vs. 1,590 results. So if WP:WEIGHT applies, it clearly leans on the side of the term 'Reboot'. And none of the sources ever mention Paramount, just CBS and in relation to Star Trek Online, the computer game. Paramount doesn't need to issue a statement to retract it. That is just setting a ridiculous standard. The term "Kelvin Timeline" should be mentioned in the article but in the proper context and without the false claims that it has been officially announced by Paramount because it hasn't. Nor should the Template or section headings be changed. If "Kelvin Timeline" becomes the mainstream term in the future, then there is a case to make the change. Until then, there is not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  There are 64,000 terms using the term "reboot" using the same standard. News articles only [7]. These search results also include the term reboot in relationship to the term "Ghostbusters" (That film being released at the exact same time the Star Trek film was released) and the new Star Trek Discovery series. Speaking of the Star Trek Discovery, why don't we have this same argument over changing the title of that series. Clearly, there are more sources calling it the "untitled 2017 TV series" then Star Trek Discovery. Both had official announcments stating that they are the new term for their respective topics. But of course there are more search terms calling it the original way. They are new vernacular. One should note that CBS and Paramount both co-own the property so a statement by CBS is just as valid as one made by Paramount. Oldag07 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  "Star Trek Discovery" is the name of the series. And 'Kelvin Timeline' only had an "official" announcement in regard to a video game, not in regard to the film series. So that is a false equivalency. Also, when I clicked on your link it came up with 586,000 results. Either way 586,000 or 64,000 vs. 1,560 would still leanWP:WEIGHT on the side of the term 'Reboot'.SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The term "Kelvin Timeline" seems to have come into common parlance during the past month or so. However I would not support titling the section "Kelvin Timeline" as it's an in-geekdom name rather than a simple description. I'd title the section something like "Rebooted timeline" (or whatever it is now), and mention in the first sentence that this is known within the fandom as the "Kelvin Timeline". -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  I have no objection to that. "Kelvin Timeline" is an in-universe description that is probably only familiar to hardcore fans. All other parts of the franchise are identified by their title "DS9", "Next Generation", etc. or an external description, "The Original Series" and "The Animated Series". Never before has an in-universe description been used. However, there is no reason to not include the term "Kelvin Timeline" in the text of articles. The second sentence of the "Star Trek Beyond" is currently, "It is the thirteenth film in the Star Trek film franchise and the third installment in the reboot series, following Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013).". I would have no objection to a change to something like this, "It is the thirteenth film in the Star Trek film franchise and the third installment in the reboot series, and takes place in the Kelvin Timeline begun in Star Trek (2009)". SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Just want to add two links. In this article the actual text from Paramount's press release regarding the next movie is included. https://thefilmstage.com/news/paramount-confirms-star-trek-4-featuring-the-return-of-chris-hemsworth/ Please note that in Paramount's official press release the term "Kelvin Timeline" is never used. But note this sentence from the 6th paragraph, "“STAR TREK,” the first film in the rebooted franchise based on “Star Trek,” created by Gene Roddenberry, earned more than $380 million worldwide in 2009." So Paramount in their official press release issued just last week doesn't not refer to the new films as the "Kelvin Timeline" but as a reboot. Any claim that Paramount has officially adopted that term or name are false. This next link is from Variety which is the paper of record for the film industry http://variety.com/2016/film/news/paramount-fourth-star-trek-chris-pine-chris-hemsworth-1201816258/ It also does not use the term "Kelvin Timeline" but instead say reboot. As I said above, while "Kelvin Timeline" should be included in the text of articles in context and where appropriate, it needs to be done on a factual basis. And section headers in the articles and template should remain unchanged. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Comment Your official "press statements" aren't "proof". Just because the term "Kelvin Timeline" is not mentioned in a press document does not mean it isn't official. Nor does that prove that the term "reboot" is the official terminology. I do trust the mainstream press. We seem to be arguing in circles. I will agree with the people with the opposing viewpoint, that at this very moment, the term "Kelvin timeline" seems obsure and might seem confusing to the average reader. I personally believe this will change overtime with the continued usage of the official term an as such this will no longer be a term only applying to "geeks". In the spirit of compromise, I will accept changing the titles now, but waiting six months to see of the usage of the term "Kelvin Timeline" increases. Oldag07 (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's not my official press statements, it's a press release issued by Paramount Pictures itself just a week ago. If over time "Kelvin Timeline" becomes more mainstream, the issue will need to be revisited then. For now, the template and Section headers should remain unchanged. However, there is no reason why the term "Kelvin Timeline" shouldn't be worked into articles as suggested above. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - "reboot series" should be renamed to something else long time ago as it is not actual reboot. First of all films are connected to previous timeline and are not set as actual TOS reboot, films also doesn't act as a reboot for Star Trek universe as Star Trek: Discovery will be set in prime timeline. It's more like back to beginning, definitely not a reboot. Vilnisr ^{T | C} 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In my personal opinion, this is the strongest reason to change it. Still, lets keep the Wikipedia:Consensus for now. Oldag07 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Counter proposal - It seems that there is some consensus for using "Kelvin Timeline" as the name for the in-universe reality somewhere in the body, but not as a heading. There also seems to be a lot of support for the idea that we should only be using the term "reboot" because that is what everyone says, not because it is actually true. Therefore, I propose that we use a neutral description for the heading, and then explain in the body that everyone uses the term "reboot" plus the Kelvin info. For example:

2009 revival
Following the cancellation of Enterprise, work began on a new film...etc. This revival of the franchise is often considered to be, and referred to as, a "reboot", but is actually a continuation of the franchise that establishes an alternate reality from the previous films. This was done to free the new films from the restrictions of continuity without completely discarding it, which was deemed to be "disrespectful". This new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was officially named the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for use in reference guides and encyclopaedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new reality in 2009's Star Trek. Abrams named the starship after his grandfather Henry Kelvin, whom he also pays tribute to in Into Darkness with the Kelvin Memorial Archive.

This way we are not choosing to name the films anything ourselves, merely describing them, while making it clear that they are usually referred to as reboots, have been called several names informally, and now have this official designation that was created for reference guides and encyclopaedias. Most of this paragraph can be sourced from this source, by the way. Do you guys already involved in this discussion have any thoughts on this proposal? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Paramount in it's latest press release refers to the current series as a reboot. That is how most people think of the films, how they are referred to overwhelmingly in the press & media and why WP:COMMONNAME applies. It is also why the name 'Kelvin Timeline' cannot be called an official, that is just not factually incorrect. The 2009 film WAS a reboot. It may have been done in a slightly different way than other reboots but it is still a reboot. Calling it anything else would just be confusing to anyone who is not a hardcore Trekkie. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If Paramount calls it a reboot, then we can say that Paramount calls it a reboot. That doesn't mean that we have to call it a reboot. If most people think of the films as a reboot, then we can say that most people think of the films as a reboot. That doesn't mean that we have to call it a reboot. WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, so the only reason that would be an issue is if casual readers were struggling to find the article about Star Trek films while it is located at "Star Trek (film series)". I seriously doubt that that is the case.

People thinking of this as a reboot does not explain why "Kelvin Timeline" cannot be an official term, nor why it is "just not factually incorrect" (which I don't think means what you think it means). On the other hand, "Kelvin Timeline" being chosen as the formal designation for use in official reference guides and encyclopaedias does make the term official as far as those books are concerned, and if you read what I wrote, I made sure to note that the name was only created as a label for the in-universe reality, and only for these nonfiction books. Nothing else is even implied. Again, we should just be stating the facts, nothing more.

"The 2009 film WAS a reboot" is just not true. The definition of a reboot is that it discards "all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning". Since the 2009 film does not do that, it cannot be a reboot. That is a fact. And since when did we play along with common misconceptions to avoid confusing casual readers? Many people, including a scary percentage of the American government, do not believe in global warming. Should Wikipedia articles on global warming also pretend that it isn't real so as not to confuse those readers? No, of course not! The Wikipedia articles on global warming state the facts (global warming is real, unfortunately), and we can only hope that readers will learn the truth and be able to move forward without making the mistake again. If I was proposing that we blanket-replace all mentions of the Star Trek reboot with another term then confusion would be understandable. But I am not. Instead, I am proposing that we explain to people why this isn't a reboot, and hopefully over time it will become more common for people to not refer to this as a reboot. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No what you're proposing it to change the articles based on your opinion, not on any facts. You don't need to explain facts to people. This issue came up several years ago. At that time it was determined that: 1) WP:COMMONNAME did apply here in regard to section headers and the template. 2) Reboot was the most appropriate term to use because that is what the studio that produced the film called it, that's what the actors that were in the film called it, that's what the media and press called it and that's how most of the public think of it. Wikipedia is for everyone not just hardcore Star Trek fans. And not for a small minority of those fans who've decided that the recent films are not a reboot, just because the filmmakers did it in a slightly different way. It's an opinion that they are not a reboot. The facts are that the studio which makes these films call them a reboot. Read Paramount's own press release from just a week ago: https://thefilmstage.com/news/paramount-confirms-star-trek-4-featuring-the-return-of-chris-hemsworth/. Nor can the term "Kelvin Timeline" in anyway be called 'official' just because it is being used in one book and a computer game. Those are the facts. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to clear a few things up. A fact is something "that is known or proved to be true". An opinion is "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact". A reboot is an installment of a series that discards "all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning". Keep these definitions in mind.

The 2009 film does not fit the definition of a reboot, since it does not discard all continuity in the series, or recreate its characters, timeline, and backstory completely from scratch. So calling the film a reboot is your opinion, and it doesn't match the facts. And since the writers of the film have not only explained this for us, but also why they chose to go this route rather than making a straight reboot, there is no good reason why this encyclopaedia shouldn't be explaining their intentions.

The 2009 film is considered to be a reboot by many people, including Paramount. That is a fact, and I am in no way denying it. We should be including this fact, and giving it the due weight it deserves. But that does not mean that the film is a reboot. Because it isn't, we've already established that. Again, the fact that we should be stating is that everyone calls it a reboot. Another example would be if everybody (Paramount, the cast, media, etc.) erroneously referred to Beyond as a prequel to Into Darkness. Would we start labeling Beyond a prequel? No! We would call it a sequel, because that is a fact, and we would explain that everybody called it a prequel anyway, which is also a fact. That way, we are only reporting the facts.

"You don't need to explain facts to people." This statement is an opinion. There are many facts that people need to have explained to them, for them to understand. People are not born all-knowing. We have to learn things as we go through life. And sometimes things are a bit complicated, and we may need people to explain them to us for us to properly understand them. That is a fact.

The "Kelvin Timeline" is the formal name for the in-universe reality that has been chosen for use in the official encyclopaedia. That is a fact. If you think I am trying to imply something more by including this, then I can't help that, but saying that the "Kelvin Timeline" is not the name they gave the timeline for that encyclopaedia is just not the truth. Because they did create this name for that encyclopaedia. That is a fact. We have reliable sources to prove it as well.

In summary, the facts that we know and should state are: the 2009 film does not fit the definition of a reboot; the creators of the film intentionally did not reboot the series; many people refer to it as a reboot anyway; and the new reality that the film and its sequels are set in has been named the "Kelvin Timeline" in an official encyclopaedia. Those are the facts; they fit the definitions that I laid out above. You can deny it all you want, but if A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then A must be equal to C, and if somebody claims otherwise, then it is up to us to explain to them why they are wrong, to try and educate them, not pretend that they are correct and just play along.

This has nothing to do with hardcore Trekkies versus casual readers. In fact, I am not a hardcore Trekkie, I am merely a fan of the new films who has seen a few episodes of the original series. But what I am, is a Wikipedia editor, and it is important to me that we make these articles right and well. That means replacing opinions (the film is a reboot) with facts (the film is considered to be a reboot by many), and explaining things for casual readers so they can learn about the topic, rather than continue believing common misconceptions. Its too bad that you don't share those ambitions. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Every single argument you make was made several years ago. The 2009 film IS undeniably a Reboot. Paramount which owns Star Trek and produces the films calls them a reboot. Just because the filmmakers did the reboot in a slightly different way that honors what came before doesn't me it's not a reboot. That is a fact. Anything else is just an opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I have gone back and had a good read through all the past discussions and edits relevant to this issue, and I'd like to go through what I learned before we continue with this discussion, if that's alright. You are correct that the arguments I am making were made several years ago. What you have failed to mention, is that they were made as part of discussions that resulted in the opposite consensus to what you claim is the consensus on this topic. Here we go.

This issue was first discussed in February 2009, at Talk:Star Trek (film), and the general feeling was that the film isn't really a reboot. Regardless, the discussion did not lead to a change in that article. However, a second discussion starting in September of that year did lead to action. The consensus of that discussion was that the film is not technically a reboot, but everyone is mistakenly referring to it as such; the article was changed to state that it was not a reboot, with a quote from the film's writer given as proof of this (so it wasn't just editor's opinions), but that it was commonly referred to as such by the media. The article stayed that way for almost two years, until a random IP came along in June 2013 and changed the article to call the film a reboot. Since this goes against the established consensus, it should have been reverted immediately. However, ironically enough, the IP had misspelled reboot "rebbot", and so immediately reverted its own addition. At that point, you (who had already been outspoken about your belief that the film was a reboot) reverted the IP's removal, as if they had removed some longstanding part of the article, and fixed the typo so that the article was now calling the film a reboot. How you got away with this when consensus was clearly against doing that is beyond me, but you did.

Now, back then this article wasn't that great, and a (I believe reasonably experienced) editor took it upon themselves to improve upon it, and added a good deal of information. It was they who introduced the reboot heading, despite the existing consensus and the fact that the 2009 film article clearly stated that it was not a reboot. That lead to a discussion in February 2013, after the film article had been saying it was not a reboot for about a year and a half, which can be seen above. To make it brief, a proposal to refer to the film as both a sequel and a reboot (and therefore not use reboot in the heading) was made, which you agreed was a "reasonable compromise". The article remained this way until December of that year, when another random IP reintroduced the reboot heading, and the against-consensus error was allowed to persist here as well. That kind of makes sense though, as by that point you had apparently changed your mind, and decided that explaining the complexity of the situation was no longer a "reasonable compromise". Instead, you started a new discussion over at Talk:Star Trek that completely ignored both the discussion here and the one over at the film's talk. There, you laid out your two main points—that though the film may not technically be a reboot, it still serves the same purpose; and that everybody else calls it a reboot, so if we don't then we will confuse or lose readers (per WP:COMMONNAME, which doesn't apply here but isn't a bad guideline to try and follow anyway)—and there was some support shown for these two points from editors involved (that is, registered editors. You completely ignored the objections and opinions of non-registered editors in a pretty weird and rude way, so I don't think it is even true to say that a fair consensus was reached. But you said it anyway), so you took it upon yourself to go around and add reboot to a whole lot of Star Trek articles.

So, back to this discussion, it is clear that you have completely ignored two separate discussions that ended in clear consensus to describe the complexity the film's status rather than try and label it in one word, and orchestrated your own one in which you decided to ignore everyone who disagreed with you so that you could get the outcome that you wanted. Well, don't expect that to happen this time, because I will not let you ignore me just because you disagree with me. When you work in a community like this, you have to cooperate with others, or it just doesn't work. So if you are not willing to work in, then I suggest you walk away before things get ugly. But I don't think that is necessary. There is no reason why you can't work with me to come up with a compromise that suits everybody, so I hope that you do chose to do so.

To start discussing our compromise, let's quickly recap what we are trying to find a compromise between: there is consensus to explain the film's complex status rather than simply label it a reboot; there is consensus to state that the term reboot is pretty commonly used to refer to the film; and there is consensus that the film serves the role of a reboot, even if it doesn't technically fit the definition of one. I think those are the main points. This is a potential compromise:

This film uses the plot device of time travel to act as a sequel to the previous films, with Leonard Nimoy reprising his role of Spock from them; give the appearance of a prequel to the original series, with new cast members playing younger versions of the original series' cast; and serve as a functional reboot of the franchise, freeing the film and any sequels from the previously established continuity. Orci explained that this route was chosen over a traditional reboot to avoid being "disrespectful" to the franchise, of which Orci is an avid fan. Despite this distinction, the film is often considered to be a strict reboot of the franchise by the general media. The new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was designated the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for official Sta Trek reference guides and encyclopaedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new timeline in 2009's Star Trek. Abrams named the starship after his grandfather Henry Kelvin, whom he also pays tribute to in Into Darkness with the Kelvin Memorial Archive.

You will see that this acknowledges that the film is essentially a reboot, and that it is generally considered to be a reboot by the non-fanboys. That's a big tick for you. You will also see that it explains why it technically is not a reboot, and why the writers made that distinction. That's a big tick for us. Everyone wins. Compromise!

Now, we obviously can't label the section reboot if we then give this explanation for why it is simultaneously not a reboot and more than a reboot as well, so we'll have to come up with something else. I suggested revival earlier, because that is how the new version of Doctor Who is referred to. I make that comparison, because the revival of Doctor Who also serves as a "functional reboot", setting up a new cast, storyline, updated designs, etc., without technically discarding the preexisting continuity, just like the new film did. Another option could be continuation. Either way, by being descriptive in the heading, and making it read 2009 ___, we will be making sure that anybody looking for the new films, whether they consider them to be reboots or not, will be able to find the right section.

I know this is a long comment, but I really think that I need to completely explain my logic and list the facts, given your penchant for dismissing anything you don't agree with as just an opinion. And in case you were considering calling any of my proposal into question, it is all reliably sourced information, so don't even try it. I hope you seriously consider working together to find a compromise on this, and, again, sorry for the length. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I like this compromise. I think your original wording is a little more concise. (edited with American English and a some trimmingOldag07 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This revival of the franchise is often considered to be, and referred to as, a "reboot", but is actually a continuation of the franchise that establishes an alternate reality from the previous films. This was done to free the new films from the restrictions of continuity without completely discarding it, which was deemed to be "disrespectful". This new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was officially named the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for use in reference guides and encyclopedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new reality in 2009's Star Trek.

I'm fine with this wording for the most part, it is factual and fairly describes the situation. I would change the word "actually" to "also" in the first sentence and omit the word "officially" since that is not accurate but other that everything else is OK. Thanks Oldag07! As before, I don't think the template or section headings should be changed at this time, Paramount still refers to this series as a reboot, and it would just be confusing to non-hardcore fans. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we are making everything more confusing. The heading of a section cannot completely contradict the contents of said section, which is what would happen if we titled it "Reboot", and then explained why it isn't a reboot. How about we name the section 2009 "reboot"? That way, casual readers can see the word reboot that they know from Paramount and the general media and so can get to the right place, but it also acknowledges what we are saying about it being a "functional reboot" more than a reboot in the traditional sense. Again, I think this is a good compromise. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As one of the many voices that 'discussed' this with Thornhill years ago, I still side myself with Oldag07; reboot is inaccurate and 'Kelvin Timeline' is now official - I just didn't have that particular name available at the time. (Personal attack removed) 2A02:C7F:621:700:7509:3902:F416:ED86 (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There's no need to mention the phrase "Kelvin timeline", as it is plot cruft. The new films effectively act as a reboot, even if that is not pedantically accurate. Referring to the new films as a "reboot" is appropriate and concise without delving into plot minutiae. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reopening discussion: Reading a lot about the recent show, it seems like the term Kelvin Timeline has stuck. My agreeing to compromise was contingent on reopening the discussion in the future. My predictions are correct. The term "reboot series" seems to be fading in usage. The term Kelvin Timeline has replaced its usage. I put "reboot" in title to help clear confusion. As of this writing ~8,320 results are found on a News search for Kelvin Timeline, including but not limited to these recent articles:

• https://www.gamesradar.com/prime-kelvin-or-something-else-which-universe-is-star-trek-discovery-actually-in/
• https://trekmovie.com/kelvin-movies/

Oldag07 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Sorry there needs to be a consensus to make this change. The term "reboot" maybe fading among hardcore Trek fans but not with non-fans. And 8,320 results is nothing compared to the over 20 Million results for Star Trek reboot. Most still refer to the new films as a reboot:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/02/09/solo-star-wars-star-trek-harrison-ford-chris-pine-alden-ehrenreich/ https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2302312/would-william-shatner-do-quentin-tarantinos-star-trek-movie-heres-what-he-said https://www.inverse.com/article/40486-please-stand-by-star-trek-spock-time-travel-dakota-fanning http://comicbook.com/startrek/2018/01/21/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-john-cho/ https://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-discovery-finale-and-season-2-thoughts-and-questions/ http://www.looper.com/110095/jeanine-mason-lands-lead-role-roswell-reboot/

The term "Kelvin timeline", as it is plot cruft and it violates WP:COMMONNAME since only hardcore Trek fans will be familiar with it. As was so well stated above, "Referring to the new films as a "reboot" is appropriate and concise without delving into plot minutiae." SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here; it is an article titling guideline and this is not a rename discussion. For example, the Bill Clinton article uses "Bill Clinton" as the article title because that is what he is commonly known as, but in the opening sentence he is referred to as "William Jefferson Clinton" i.e. what he is officially called. The only question here is whether "Kelvin Timeline" has been taken on in an official capacity or not in referring to this particular section of the canon. The last time we had this discussion you assured me it had not. If that is still the case then fair enough, "Kelvin Timeline" should not be used, but if it has been adopted in an official capacity in the two years since then the proper process should be to incorporate it into the article. As editors we have to be prepared to review new evidence in case circumstances change, which they often do in a real world context. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To date I have not seen any press release from Paramount referring to the films as the "Kelvin Timeline". Even the plot synopsis of 2009 film on the official Star Trek website doesn't use the term: http://www.startrek.com/database_article/star-trek-2009. And I do feel that WP:COMMONNAME does apply since the "Kelvin Timeline" would be confusing to anyone other than hardcore Trek fans. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It might not be Kelvin Timeline, but it clearly isn't reboot anymore. Why not put both. Oldag07 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, if hardcore fans are the only ones who use it there is WP:EDUCATIONAL reasons to have it. Oldag07 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK How about this, in the header for that section, change it to: "Reboot" films (AKA The Kelvin Timeline). Not sure if the AKA should be all caps or not. Also, in the text of the 2009 film change to: This film acts as a reboot to the existing franchise by taking place in an "alternate reality" using the plot device of time travel to depict an altered timeline, known as the Kelvin Timeline, etc. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can live with keeping reboot in the title. I changed it to "Kelvin Timeline (reboot) series" and it was reverted. That is why this discussion is going on. I can live with "Reboot (Kelvin Timeline) series". Oldag07 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

OK Made the change. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Kelvin Timeline

This is evidently a controversial topic, given previous discussions -- however, what is the official reason that we are choosing to exclude the official title of these films? While it was formerly unofficial, given that there are various movies and film series in the franchise-- wouldn't it be more productive to call the series exactly what Paramount has named them (The Kelvin Timeline)?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as the official name was chosen by the studio, why are we including "reboot" in the sectional header? Wouldn't it be more effective to include this specifier in pros? Additionally, as far as film tables go -- it seems as though official titles would be more accurate within the film tables.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am for having a new discussion about this. The section has been updated since the last discussion to include new information that better supports the use of The Kelvin Timeline, including an official home media release with that title and an interview with one of the creative team confirming that "reboot" is an incorrect term used by the media. However, we can't ignore what sources say just because they are incorrect, and the best entertainment sources continue to refer to these films the "reboot films". My personal preference is to use the official name in the heading and explain in prose that the films are still generally considered to be reboots. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with excluding the term reboot is that most who aren't hardcore Trek fans might be confused. The JJ Abrams films continues to be called a reboot by most mainstream sources as you noted. This issue was discussed to death several years ago. The term "Reboot (Kelvin Timeline) series" is what was agreed to then and it is what is used across several articles. However, since things have evolved and Kelvin Timeline has become more widely used maybe change it to "Kelvin Timeline (reboot) series". But it needs to be across every article and the template or it will lead to confusion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160819105802/https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/the-kelvin-timeline-official-name-for-the-new-star-trek-universe/vp-AAhGc7S to https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/the-kelvin-timeline-official-name-for-the-new-star-trek-universe/vp-AAhGc7S

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)