Talk:Star Trek/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Speedy Deletion of ALL StarTrek images??

Some bot or someone went through all the StarTrek images and added "This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after 2007-08-03." -- what gives? It seems the rationale of fair use is obvious and stated in all pictures.

Soon, tons and tons of StarTrek images necessary to illustrate concepts will be auto-deleted.

It was probably someone at former Viacom trying to exercise his right to be annoying..TetrisAnarchist 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If the images are publicity shots from startrek.com they are marked, or if they don't have source and fair use rationale they are marked. The images need all the proper information, and I am working on replacing the speedy deletion ones to correct this, already fixed Worf and Crusher. Ejfetters 06:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TOS TrekMUSE in Expanded Universe

For the Star Trek portal box, TOS TrekMUSE is listed as an "Expanded Universe" entry, apart from the Fan entries. Is there a reason for this, or is this simply TOS TrekMUSE players asserting they have official sanction from Paramount (again) and are therefore EU canon? 68.249.4.142 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for fan made production.

I did find out that Walter Koenig played Chekov in Star Trek: New Voyages but I'm not sure what way you could add it to the artical. Could one of you help? Here is the web page. (Go down to Special guests) Hope this is useful. Tenchi Muyo 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Tenchi Muyo

Section for Themes in Star Trek?

I don't know enough to do it myself, but seems like this article would benefit greatly from a section that elaborates on the themes explored in the show. I'd specifically like a discussion of the utopian ideals of the original series, and how it evolved into a more rough-edged "real world" version of itself by the time Enterprise came around. Also a discussion of how war, racism, etc. are displayed. Happywaffle 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Definetly. I second your comments Happywaffle. You speak the truth.--P-Chan 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. My suggestions as an avid trekkie and literature graduate, also got a First Class Honours mark for my dissertation on music in science-fiction films 1926-2004. Give me a go if you like the below and I'll crack on over this week.

My suggestions for Themes: Exploration, Family, Dealing With The Unknown, Racism, Politics, Religion/Spirituality, Utopia and Dystopia, Human(oid) Rights, Time Travel, War, Implications of new technology. Sound good for starters? Probably a couple of hundred words on each should suffice. Luke niceshortname@hotmail.com

Although this doesn't quite fit in this section... I would like to say that generally, in the beginning of the article, that the Star Trek characters are NOT altruistic! In fact, many of the philosphic themes in Star Trek attempt to discredit altruism, whoever wrote that there was wrong... If no one else, Spock was certainly NOT altruistic at the very least... He believed in rationally and logically serving his self-interest, which was in his case, exploring the universe... If I were to compare the overriding philosophic theme of Star Trek to a popular philosophy, I'd say that Star Trek's philosophy is most similar to Ayn Rand's objectivism than anything else. (Logic and rational self-interest (selfishness) while respecting the sovereignty of others as long as they do not hurt you.) Or at the very least Aristotlienism... Just my comments. If you want evidence of this philosophy being expressed in Star Trek, feel free to email me! ^_^

-Anonymous Well-Meaning Editor (joseph@eaglestock.com)

Hmm, I think I'd have to disagree. Spock, altruistic? He sacrificed himself "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one" That's altruisim right there. I guess I'd have to have a nice discussion with you about this. (Email sent) (content reverted).

There is a difference between altruistic behavior, and altruism as a society or practice. In fact, Nicholas Meyer or someone once commented on how Star Trek III totally reversed everything that was in Star Trek II -- that, instead of being "needs of the many", it became "needs of the one" outweigh the needs of the many. Also, "outweigh" does not necessarily mean one eliminates the other needs. In fact, I always felt Spock's comment was illogical -- he was going to die anyway, whether he acted or not, there was no loss to himself by saving the ship because if he didn't save the ship he would have been dead when the ship was destroyed. As it was, he actually saved himself by saving the ship, so that the people in the ship could save him! That means he actually committed a selfish (non-altruistic) act!

69.181.188.254 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophically, altruism is inherently selfish because it gives one a good feeling. But ignoring that, Spock didn't know (at the time) that by saving the ship, he would eventually get to live again. At the time of Star Trek II, the writers probably didn't even know what they were going to do after that movie. Even Spock doing a "brain dump" into McCoy was probably an afterthought, because all that we had was "Remember." At the time of his death, he had only planned on McCoy returning to Mount Seleya (sp?) with what was left of his self. Since the books are not canon, we can't say anything else beyond that. — Val42 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for more information

Can someone please add info showing when each series is set (eg ST:TNG is set in 2255 to 2270 or whatever it is)? Mnbf9rca 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Heterosexual vs Homosexual

Why is a list of homosexual charecters allowed but not a list of heterosexual? Reverting vadalism.68.19.212.161 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• For the same reason there isn't a discussion of white characters on Star Trek. Do you really need to have this explained to you? The LGBT article discusses fan speculation and controversy surrounding Star Trek's dealing with (or lack of dealing with) gay issues. Why are you so threatened by its existance? --Etacar11 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't disallowed. If you'd like to write an article on heterosexuality in Star Trek, more power to you. I suggest you focus on Seven of Nine's blatant sexualization, Kirk and Riker's womanizing habits, and the Borg Queen attempting to seduce Data in First Contact. The reason the link is being removed from the article is that it seems to other editors (including myself) that the link to the non-existent heterosexuality article is intended to make "statement" about homosexuality, and is not an attempt to improve this article - that violates Wikipedia: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and treads on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns. -- stillnotelf is invisible 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second the above opinion. 2Misters 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do the gays have to have everything? Back in the 70's it was rumored that Kirk and Spock were lovers and Gene himself dispelled that in the opening chapters of his novelization of his Motion Picture script. The book is available at used bookstores everywhere. Lots of real life people in Hollywood and at Dezilu were in fact, GAY. No one cared. George Takei is still GAY. No one cares.

And if you weren't just a little bit homophobic, do you think you would even be saying this? 79.65.31.77 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that this has been an ongoing controversy and even addressed by Gene Roddenberry himself, there needs to be some mention of it, and the distress of some fans that Star Trek has practically ignored it. I also suggest that sexuality in general (other than plain old vanilla sex) has also been ignored for the most part, due to the limitations of television on this score.

69.181.188.254 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seven of Nine did NOT increase Voyager's ratings, once again.

Whoever wrote that Berman's introduction of Seven of Nine increased Voyager's ratings should have consulted the archived debate where it was proven definitively that the ratings continued to fall. Check "85 VOY ratings did NOT increase with the addition of "Seven of Nine". Check also the discussion of Nielsen Media Research where the entire ratings archive for Voyager was compiled. When I get a few minutes I'll dig through history and find the way it was correctly phrased. As of now, I've corrected the erroneous entry from the BIG FAN of Seven of Nine. --Nephandus 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

did they simply decrease at a slower rate? Just a thought? For me only Enterprise made me actively not watch whilst Voyager was bearable for the most part. Perhaps Jeri Ryan's role helped keep ratings at a respectable level whils still declining? Certainly the nicest costumed damage limitation I've ever seen! Luke

Star Trek 2.0

Shouldn't there be a segment concerning G4's airing of the show? DrWho42 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, except that's the stupidest format for a TV show I've ever seen, I can't possibly imagine the apeal of shrinking the picture to 1/2 it's size, and bombarding watchers with more flashy crap on the top/side/bottom of the screen, than your average cable news show, I mean no ones attention span is that short, surely they'll give up on this silly format after a while and just air them normally--172.153.7.119 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS, they totally ripped off mystery science theater with the whole on screen, real time, chat room thing--172.153.7.119 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's finally an article thereon, so please feel free to contribute thereto. =)

Star Trek 2.0

G4 is now the only channel, I know of myself, that still shows the original Star Trek, ever since SciFi Channel took it off its line-up..DrWho42 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also would appreciate some discussion of the abomination that is the new reworked TOS shows with new, sometimes inferior, special effects. I have written before about how disrectful these changes are to the hard-working special effects creators on the original show, and how, in many cases, the original effects fit better in the show, or look better, or both. They have destroyed the amoeba effect on "Immunity Syndrome", which was a ground-breaking effect, one of, in my view, the most impressive effects ever made for its time. Also, many feel that the effects, in their simplicity, is what gives the show its charm. They are also part of the history of Star Trek and demonstrate the huge problems of putting on a show of that kind in that era. I feel Paramount did this to basically extend the copyright forever and have something new to sell, and, although I don't like George Lucas changing old Star Wars, at least it's his to desecrate; Gene Roddenberry and the special effects wizards are mostly not alive to protest.

What is worse, when aired on tv, they show these new effects, but delete some of the most famous dialogue lines in the history of Star Trek, such as "Vulcans never bluff", which has become a catchphrase of sorts. In fact, the whole scene between Spock and Decker has been butchered!

69.181.188.254 05:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I merged the page to TOS page, as I feel it doesn't need its own article. It can't be expanded very much and works much better as a trivia bit on TOS article. The Wookieepedian 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, primarily true, although I feel there should be some segment concerning what the Spock Market is and how it operates, but again another subset of trivia. DrWho42 01:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

TVland shows Trek at 4am every day. It's been edited for political correctness.

Shouldn't that be 7 films?

The subsection on the culture of Star Trek mentions The Original Series has inspired ten feature films. This isn't true, strictly speaking, since the cast of TOS was not the basis for the last 3 movies; the TNG cast was. I wasn't sure if it should be changed. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not really what it's saying. It's saying the success of TOS launched 10 films in addition to 4 spinoff TV shows etc. K1Bond007 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

in all actuality, 6 movies with the original crew, 3 with tng crew, and the 10th movie, generations bridges the gap, that while the movie ws primarily centered around tng crew, it had major parts in it of scotty, kirk and chekov (they originally planned on the entirity of tos crew, but not all were willing to sign on so they went with those 3).

According to the press at the time, only Kirk Spock and McCoy were to be involved. The writers were young men and did not appreciate De Kelley's age, and Nimoy had huge problems with the script and refused. Direct quote by Kelley, "If he's not going to be in it, I won't either." Spock's lines were given to Scott, and McCoy to Chekov with minimal rewrites which explains the inconsistencies. I had the Starlog at that time but don't now. Surely someone has it and can "cite" it here

Avery Brooks was NOT introduced in DS9

Perhaps a bit nitpicky, but when speaking about actors the term "introduced" usually means it was that actor's debut performance (at least in a major market). Avery Brooks was well established long before DS9. I changed "introduced" to "starred".

Request for link to be added

I believe my site, [1], is worthy of being added as a link under the article. I would appreciate your consideration.

Signed by 75.7.247.232 09:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty, but not notable... - The One and Only 15:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Concurring with the above. DrWho42 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have visited this site before, and it is a very well done site. I don't see why it shouldn't be put up there...sure it's not the most massive site ever, but it is unique. I think fans would appreciate the site, as i do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.206.203 (talk • contribs) 20:44 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Before people add or delete pages within the links section, they should be validated.

Kirk Vs. Picard

Added the Kirk Vs. Picard debate/controversey. JAF1970 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey there is this MAD thing that I found on a unoffical sTARTREK BOOK for generations showing Picard and Kirk fighting I think it might illustrate the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk • contribs) 18:42 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reason it was completely removed?! JAF1970 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Canon

From StarTrek.com:

"What is considered Star Trek "canon"?

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

There are only a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)"

Does this mean that since an event was observed (i.e. how many weapons are on a ship) it is canon because it is an event that officially took place during the show? Lord Hawk 16:04 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, it does. However, it does present the interesting question of how to handle on-screen, on-set, in-jokes that Mike Okuda's staff put in during production. Some good examples would be the Ferrari in the main shuttlebay (according to the primary Okudagram of 1701-D in Main Engineering) and door/panel labels reading things to the general tune of '186,000 miles per second ... it's not just a good idea, it's the law'. On the flip side of that (again) there are panels which do in fact read "Commander Beverly Crusher, MD CMO. Personal Quarters" and/or "No User-Servicable Parts Inside". So, it's hard to tell and something worth debate and discussion.

Personally, it should be handled that if a screen is featured (eg: a character is specifically looking at it or it is next to a screen a character is looking at) then it should be canon. But if it's something that someone with nothing to do on a rainy day but sit with the freeze frame button on a really high-def. TV with the DVD set was able to pick out of the background as Janeway and Tuvok walked past it, then no, it shouldn't be considered canon.

What I would like to know - as I haven't read an official statement come from a named source at Paramount - is the canonity of the technical books which are published (eg: the technical manuals, the encyclopedia(s), the 1701-D blueprints, etc). I understand the difficulty in making all of the novels canon, but what about the technical publications? Those are almost always worked on by staff from the show and most of them have been worked on by Mike Okuda.

More talk about canon from DC Fontana: DOROTHY FONTANA: I suppose "canon" means what Gene Roddenberry decided it was. Remember, we were making it up as we went along on the original series (and on the animated one, too). We had a research company to keep us on the straight and narrow as to science, projected science based on known science, science fiction references (we didn’t want to step on anyone’s exclusive ideas in movies, other TV shows, or printed work). They also helped prevent contradictions and common reference errors. So the so-called canon evolved in its own way and its own time. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry apparently didn’t take the animated series seriously (no pun intended), although we worked very hard to do original STAR TREK stories and concepts at all times in the animated series. What freed us there was the fact that we could do environments and aliens without the constraints of sets, makeup and costumes that would have been difficult to do in live action. The research company also worked on this series, again to keep us within rules we had set up in the original series and to keep references in terms of science/science fiction etc. accurate.

Timeline, Star- and Earthdates

It would be helpful to have a timeline of major events in the Star Trek universe. Additionally notes on each series of the stardates and/or earthdates covered by episodes of that series. Would this belong on a separate page or as a subheading on this one? I don't have the subject knowledge to do it, or I would have. Anyone?

Maybe there should be a Star Trek Universe article. Hey does anyone realize at this point every major power in the Star Trek Universe has had a war with each other. Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Dominion, and Federation have all fought each other in just about every combination. Just something to put in that article. I'd make it myself but I know little about making articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jztinfinity (talk • contribs) 19:02 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Notes

You need Fair use Rationales! Otherwise, you won't pass, you'll be breaching copyright, and we'll have to send the Borg round to assimilate your knee caps. ;) Harmonious editting, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the lack of in-line citations and they few {{fact}} templates that could be easily addressed. It is a great article with good resources listed but I'm not sure it is where we want it to be yet. Eluchil404 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

There are some serious issues that have to be addressed before this article can reach a GA status. The first would be lack of any inline citations.

The second, and much more importantly, would be the scope of the article. On the whole, this article has a very fansite feel to it, focusing mainly on the interesting bits from the films and movies, while totally leaving out key encyclopedic elements.

• What about Gene's inspiration for Star Trek?
• The real world connections in terms of the themes?
• What about the themes themeselves?
• What about the technology?

(The lead mentions some of these topics, but keep in mind that's only the lead, as those topics need expansion elsewhere.)

For examples of things this article shouldn't include... take these two examples. Star Trek: Phase II, in my opinion, plays a very very very minor role in the mythos, but yet it has a whole section dedicated to this topic. As well, a fifth of the article is dedicated to what may very well end up being speculation about new series, the future of the franchise, new films, etc. These sections may be fine on an article about some 2-bit primetime sitcom, but keep in mind, this is Star Trek. This is one of the biggest science fiction franchises in the world. It has a massive fanbase, it has had languages creates for it, it has depth, it is a culture in itself, and frankly, it deserves better.

Leave the speculation for a blog, fansite, or whatever... and instead focus on the core topics. The more space in this article dedicated to predicting the future, the less space there will be dedicated to talking about its rich past. Remember, the fun fun topics can be covered elsewhere on wikipedia, but the fundamentals have to be covered here.

Also, keep in mind that this article is only a measly 37K. That's nothing. You have room to grow. So get going guys! We're all counting on you! (Yes, I'm being harsh here, but I think you guys can pull this off if you give it another shot.) --P-Chan 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed something else. There seems to be a rich reading list in the references section. But do all of those books just talk about the Shows, Movies and speculation? Judging by the titles, I don't think so. I have a feeling that the references listed in this article don't accurately reflect the article itself, otherwise we'd have something a little more encyclopedic. In the future don't put things in the references section unless you use them as references. Also, that diverse listing of books look like it would be a powerful launch pad for you guys.--P-Chan 04:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on the inline citations, they are not needed for the GA status. Lincher 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over the Temporal Cold War

There has been some recent tensions over the the Controversy section of the Star Trek: Enterprise arc article, Temporal Cold War. If anyone here can help settle the debate against this rather blockheaded user who insists that Storm Front was one of the best episodes, that it should be included in the article, and that it isn't NPOV but simply a logical conclusion based on so-called "statistics".... Please please do so. DrWho42 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Current status and the future of the franchise

Why can't this section be compressed into two paragraphs? We don't need a big explanation of the next film, since that already has its own article. The rest is just a collection of media reports and trivia.--StAkAr Karnak 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes

There has been a dispute over how many episodes in Star Trek there are. I count it as follows:

TOS: 80 (counting The Menagerie as 2 (both Prod. 16) and The Cage (Prod. 01) as 1)

TAS: 22 (some may see the production numbers and think there are 23, however there is no production numbered 12)

TNG: 178

DS9: 176

VOY: 172

ENT: 98

Total: 726

I counted all episodes as 1 per hour, except for TAS, which is one per half-hour. I counted 2-hour episodes as 2 episodes (1 per hour). If I have missed something, please drop a note. -- CALQL8 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The 726 was established back in the archived talk page. I requested a citation because this figure tends to get modified and I wanted to put it to rest with finality. Is there a website or something in writing that also states 726 that we can use as a footnote? If all else fails, we could spell it out with a table in-article, but I'd rather reduce the bulk than add to it. Maybe state the number of episodes within each series summary?--StAkAr Karnak 01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a place where it references the 726, but at StarTrek.com[2] it specifically states there are 704 live action episodes. I don't think you can get much better than the official site for a reference. We could just change the wording to say that there are 704 live action episodes and 22 animated episodes. -- CALQL8 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the episodes are not one hour in length because of commercials. This is the breakdown from what I have watched:

    TOS: 46-48 mins.
    TNG: almost always 45
    DS9: 43-45 mins.
    VOY: 43-45 mins.
    ENT: 40-42 mins.

I have never seen the animated series, so I can't give exact numbers there. Totaling up these five series and the ten movies this is almost 630 hours. This means that if you start watching Star Trek in the morning at 7:00, watched it untill 11:00 at night and had all of your food and water needs provided for, it would take a little over 34 days to get through all that is live-action Star Trek. That's a lot of Trek. Hope this helps. Mainphramephreak 07:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It just makes you wonder if some extremely die-hard Trekkie has ever done such a thing. The Wookieepedian 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Star Trek

The cultural influence section is repeated virtually word for word in an article of its own. This article is accessible form the menu bar. Accordingly, I am removing it from the main article. Secondly, I am at a loss as to how the Wikinews article about a rendition of the Star Trek theme song at an award show enriches the main Star Trek article.--StAkAr Karnak 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article is ever to be featured, it needs a section on the cultural impact of Star Trek. That is why I restored it. It had a link to the main article, which more thoroughly explores the topic. The Wookieepedian 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek was the featured article on May 22, 2004. Taking a look at what the article was back then, I wonder how it was ever selected; it was sort of an internal linkfarm. Out of curiousity, I checked out Memory Alpha's page on Star Trek, it being the Trek Wiki. I think our current article is much better than theirs.

I agree that Trek's cultural impact is significant enough to mention even though it has its own article. That said, I don't think it should be a duplication of the same content. Maybe just two or three sentences with a pointer link to its own page.--StAkAr Karnak 01:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a section on Cultural Impact, just as there is one for Next Generation, Voyager, etc. (even though those have there own articles also). I agree that the section shouldn't duplicate the entire article word for word, but some form of synopsis should be there. I think that until this synopsis is generated, the the deleted cultural impact section should be re-restored, as I will do now. Newnam^(talk) 00:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wookieepedian and Newman. The section is absolutely essential for turning this article from a Fan-article to an article with real encyclopedia value. There is a lot of "out-of-universe" material in that section. (You can't just talk about the shows, there's also the real-life impact that this show has.) If it overlaps too much with the daughter article, then the first step would be to modify what's here.--P-Chan 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories The article omits that there is a psyop element in the creation of Star Trek... Tommy Boyd collected some good arguments, Roddenberry having been a spook (US Air Force counterintelligence, LAPD mole) and who gave the money? etc. In the light of the revelations of the last 10 years about CIA involvements in directing culture is not at all far fetched. Naturally, the aim was to further the myth that WASPs are the right people to conquer the universe and the romulans (chinese) and klingons (russians, germans) are scary unless they subordinate. Star Trek is a military phantasy unbecoming of a real democracy. Weapons in space, oh my gawd! More arguments are collected here . I mean, it is almost a regular feature of wikipedia articles that they include a Conspiracy Theories chapter. I think that's good. The nature of psyops (i.e. being covert) necessitates speculation in order to inform. 124.197.26.162 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Section: Criticism

I think a new section should be added that contains criticism of the show... I know for sure that there is enough to warrent a section.

Any section on criticism would surely be POV, so I don't think it would be a good idea. But if there is a valid source and it can be writtin neutrally, then yes. Newnam^(talk) 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How much criticism can be applied to Trek as a whole? Criticisms can largely be addressed in the shows' own articles.--StAkAr Karnak 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels

Moved to talk page from article Newnam^(talk) 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I appologize for being new at this, but I felt it necessary to add the new book series Stone and Anvil featuring captain Mackey I believe is his name. An interesting read, but with no real tie ins to the ST Timeline except for it's references to voyager and one book where the Enterprise D had to intercept the main ship in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittamaru (talk • contribs)

List of multi-part episodes

I don't think the list of multi-part episodes is appropriate for the main Star Trek article. I suggest moving it to List of Star Trek episodes. Marky1981 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Also, we need to kill at least 8k, to bring the article down to size. Anynting else that should be seperated? McKay 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought it down a lot, but users generally prefer it long and redundant.--StAkAr Karnak 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason the section you deleted was restored is because the topic still needs a summarization in the main article, and until that's created, the whole section will stay. There is no harm in having more information than not, when that information is correct. Also, why does it need to go down 8k? I wasn't aware of a limit, and Star Trek is such an encompassing subject that it requires a large article. Newnam^(talk) 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

STAR TREK PAGE TO BE REPLACED!!

Obviously the Star Trek page is (a) absurdly long and self-important, (b) full of pretentious trekkie nonsense and (c) a load of utter drivel.

Clearly this situation CANNOT CONTINUE. Star Trek was a very minor program from the mid-60s of limited viewership that has been entirely without impact. I therefore propose as a matter of Wikipedia-driven urgency (if ever there was a sense of urgency around here!!) to immediately REPLACE and IMPROVE this page. This is in the interests of all SANE WIKIPEDIANS and a BETTER WIKIPEDIA. So obviously you must support it. Votes will be counted here during the next 11 minutes, collated and then a fair and democratic wikidecision taken to immediately implement my views.

Thus in future this page, currently running to some 947 standard-sized screenfulls of mindless wittering will only contain the following text:

"Star Trek was a TV show made in California during the 60s. It featured Leonard Nimoy as the alien "Spock", who later appeared (not Spock - Nimoy!) in Hotel California by the Eagles and in Mission Impossible, and William Shatner, a second rate actor who later appeared in CJ Booker. Check science fiction for the real thing. The program was an utter failure, and has attracted various equally boring and depressing sequels, one featuring the bald French actor Jean Luc Picard who later appears playing Patrick Stewart in the much funnier Extras."

There will also be only two photos on the entire page.

I strongly disagree. The television shows (all the series and films) were big social events in our history of media and social impacts on western/eastern cultures.

I do not believe I have to cite this, however it is common knowledge that Star Trek fans have: Caused a Star Ship to change name to Enterprise, fan organizers raised millions of dollars to keep the show series Star Trek: Enterprise, social groupings in communities worldwide (Sfi.org)...

Do I need to continue?

Personall,y the way Star Trek information is placed on wikipedia should remain the same...not revamped.  :--Aleeproject 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The original post is a bunch of nonsense tripe not to be taken seriously. --EEMeltonIV 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As they say in internet message boards, TROLL!!! BTW, this is not a message boardOldag07 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This dude is not a troll, He just has the guts to stand up to the multitudes, I totally 100,00000000% support this dude and second the motion chicken picata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicken picata (talk • contribs) 09:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

A message to the person who started all of this and to User:Chicken picata - Please read all wikipedia policy including WP:N, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, among others, or do not continue to edit Wikipedia. Saying all this means you obviously don't know policy very well, and you should, because this all makes you look very, very, silly. And Oldag07 is right, Wikipedia talk pages are not message boards. If you must do this, place it where it should go, such as WP:AFD. Again, policy is the key!

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for fan made production.

Wasn't Weasley Crusher made an acting ensign in the first series, not second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdiaob (talk • contribs) 00:01 12 August 2006 (UTC)

File:180px-Korob.jpg

File:180px-SylviaKorob.jpg

VOTE NOW WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME TO SAVE WIKIPEDIA! MarkThomas 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Next Generation Rewrite

The section on the next generation needs an edit. Instead of saying something like: "The crew of this series' ship is:", it uses the word NEW an obsene amount of times. 70.177.68.209 03:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie Posters

I've deleted the box with all the movie posters. The individual articles about the movies each show their posters. It's not necessary to duplicate that here, it just takes up space. CPitt76 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dates in headers

It seems a bit cluttered to have the production dates of each series included in the headers. The information is available in either the blurb in this article, or the main article for each series. What does everyone think? Newnam^(talk) 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

TNG rqst

Some anon guy posted the following to the article:

The one disputedly negative aspect of TNG, was that Gene Roddenbury decided, before the pilot was writen, that the bridge crew would never disagree with one another. although this leads to a more futuristic, perfect view, many beleive that this lack of character conflict makes the show lose all shreds of enjoyability.

There's some POV there, but probably also a useful nugget for inclusion. Anyone want to take a stab at fixing it up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's almost entirely POV. Was there even a source provided to back up the claim? Assuming it can be backed up, it's probably better suited for inclusion in TNG main article. CPitt76 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What has happened

For some reason, whenever I try to look up Star Trek, I am directed to a page about Star Wars. Did someone delete all of the Trek information and copy the Star Wars?

There's one or two words on the subject at Star Trek. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he was referring to [3], which now appears to have been fixed. Dionyseus 20:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Revamp

I just completely changed this article, and hope I didn't remove or add anything inappropriately. I have been re-doing this article for the past several days and my progress can be seen in my userspace at User:Newnam/Star Trek rewrite. Some comments on what it was I did to the article: I mereged the paragraphs in the opening to create a more concise and grammatically correct introduction. I have reduced all of the sub-headings about the individual series to one paragraph each. The reason for this is because the link to the main article is right there, and any additional information on this page would be extraneous to explaing Star Trek. I removed the section on multi-part episodes, as it is not neccessary, again, to explaining Star Trek. I merged the novels section with the other storylines and canonocity, to create a broad enough section to keep away from unneccesary specifics. The last thing I did, was reference pretty much the whole article with inline citations, something that has been missing and needed for some time. I did spend quite some time on this, so if you disagree with how the article is now, please just comment, or fix what's wrong. I believe this is the start that is needed to finally get this article to featured status. My one request is that you do not wholly or partially revert my edits until it is discussed. Hope everyone likes the article, Newnam^(talk) 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"science has united human beings"?

Previously, I changed this sentence, but was reverted by Newnam: "Star Trek, [...], depicts a post World War III vision of the future in which science has [...] helped humanity to largely overcome many Earth-bound frailties and vices."

My issue is that science is not what united Star Trek's humanity. It was the Vulcans. Humanity went through WWIII and was in the midst of a 'post-atomic horror' when the Vulcans intervened and dramatically altered the course of Human history. This is why the TNG crew worked to restore the timeline in First Contact; they knew Cochrane's invention wasn't enough to save man from the dark ages. Technology played no role in Human morality. Left to their own devices, the US would still have been in conflict with the Eastern Coalition. Can anyone present evidence that Humanity would still have been prosperous if the Vulcans never showed up?

IMO, the intro should be changed to say: "Star Trek, [...], depicts a post World War III vision of the future in which alien intervention and science have [...] helped humanity to largely overcome many Earth-bound frailties and vices." -- StAkAr Karnak 03:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, rather than simply reverting. It is my opinion, that you are correct in what you say, it's just that the information seems superfulous. The alien intervention is a resultant of a trip in space, faster than light, which results from the science of warp power. In the end, it was the science that allowed everything to take place. I feel that if we add alien intervention to the reasons, then we should add Zephram Cochrane's name, and the fact about a faster-than-light trip during a borg attack. I think I've looked at this article too long to see things objectively anymore, so if you feel that it should go in there still, feel free to place it there. Regards, Newnam^(talk) 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is superfluous, because if only science is mentioned, then it sounds like man did everything on their own. If alien intervention is added, it is clear that man had help. This makes a significant difference in what sort of future Star Trek portrays. There is no need to elaborate in the intro, because is someone was curious and wanted to learn more, they could easily do a search for Star Trek history. I will go ahead and readd the datapoint, since you've indicated your compliance. Thanks. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

40th Anniversary

Happy 40th birthday Star Trek! Keep up the good work guys! Marky1981 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Assertion

I'm removing the following uncited assertion:

- the first Star Trek series

Fact Check (Unofficial) 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

Parodies started appearing within the past week, and we're getting too big. If it's notable enough to be included in wikipedia, it's notable enough for it's own article. If some parody seriously affected Star Trek, it can be noted in this article. McKay 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree There are far too many (Family guy, Futurama, and Simpsons have each done like 10 a piece) We should make a new section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.198.233.117 (talk • contribs) .

WikiProject Buffyverse has just been through the same issue. Less than a week ago I had to make this article on 'Buffy parodies' - Paxomen 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Section definately needs its own article. Newnam^(talk) 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to do this, and I had

Star Trek parodies are pop culture references to Star Trek, partiularly in a satrical tone.

When I thought, "maybe we shouldn't just limit ourselves to satire, and do all pop culture references? What are your thoughts? McKay 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree Move it to Cultural impact of Star Trek instead. CovenantD 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek auction

"(CNN) -- Trekkies set their phasers to bid this week, doling out about $7.1 million during a three-day auction of "Star Trek" memorabilia at Rockefeller Center, Christie's auction house said Saturday." [4]

Where should this infomation be put? dposse 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations for Improvements

1. Add mention and picture of USS Defiant to portion about series Deep Space Nine; relevant because it was a warship, reflecting the darker tone of the series, as well as being a major part of the program from the fourth season on. 2. Authors of the article should attempt to get ahold of a television program called "How William Shatner Changed the World," (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814142/) which presents great interviews on the influence of Star Trek on science and technology. See official website for this program at http://www.discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/. 3. It might be worth to mentioning that second ship in Star Trek canon, Columbia NX-01, was named in tribute to the destroyed USA Space Shuttle of the same name, according to Memory Alpha. In addition, Memory Alpha claims that USS Challenger NCC-71099 was a tribute to the destroyed USA Space Shuttle of the same name. I do not know if they have citations for these, but they make a good argument and it might be possible to get Paramount to confirm.

72.77.64.142 04:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Spekkio (spekkiomofw at gmail dot com) 24OCT06 00:09 EDT

I just want to add a great website for information on everything Star Trek, most likely the best website i have ever found, information ranging from episodes and reviews with synopsis to technical information on every ship, station, and character to ever be in Star Trek. The site also has directors and actors informatin as well a slong articles on technology and a massive database on food, holoprograms, and anything you can imagine. I suggest you go and check it out: http://ditl.org/

128.113.148.102 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)This was added on October 24, 2006

Main Picture

It might be helpful to get a main picture at the top of the page, like the current Star Trek franchise logo, or the delta symbol, or something of that nature. It would be more recognizable. Mnpeter 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary main picture at the top to represent the franchise, the Star Trek franchise being the subject of this article. It really is a shame the article went this long without something at the top. Mike Castle 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: The original image that I placed for the main picture had awfully poor resolution (it looked even more terrible and pixilated when enlarged), but for a while I couldn't find another image showing the current Star Trek logo. Today I've found a better image with higher and starker resolution to use. I said before that the original image was temporary. If you guys don't like it, this is the place to talk about it. But frankly, I think this one looks better. --Mike Castle 08:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

There seems to be too many images of the series' starships. I would have thought images of the cast would be more appropriate, or at least a mixture of both the ships and the crew. Marky1981 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the crews should be under their respective ships.

BioHazard<>Drop me a line 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

star trek and science

I realise that what Im going to say may sound VERY UPSETTING to most Trekkies here,but my request is to put your emotions and your passion for STar Trek aside before responding to this.

First how can Star Trek be "science fiction"?Almost every episode since the series first began contains magical or fantasy elements.Every time I discuss the so-called "science" of Star Trek with Trekkies they respond with such hostility that even once,a Trekkie rudely called me "a moron".

Now, I've seen these fantasy in ALMOST EVERY EPISODE of Star Trek and ofcourse I cant list them all but I'll list a few:

-time travel.How can this be sceintific?Sceince ficiton involves technology that is a POSSIBILITY or carries a scientific theory behind it.If such a thing MIGHT be possible in the future,then why don't people come here from the future?

-Charlie Evans.FOr those of you who don't know,he is a character from the original series who could make people vanish into nothing by staring at them.Where's the "science" in that?

-Gary Mitchal.Another character from the original series who develops god-like powers and does things that scientits would classify plainly as "impossible" such as creating a garden by simply raising his hand.Again where's the "science" in that?

-An episode from The Next Generation features a gun that sends a planet 3000 years back in time.More like a magical gun if you ask me.No the planet doesnt move through space.The planet is simply where it is just the time is 3000 years back.

-Q.Trekkies tell me he is not a magician at all but simply "plays with time"(????)to do what he does.Where does exactly "playing with time" fit in science?And how come only Q can do this?

-An episode in Voyager features evolved,humaniod dinasours he who meet humans for the first time.They somehow know how to speak English(long before they meet humans???) and their Queen is somehow able to jam Voyager's entire systems,thus disabling the ship entirely with simply the power of her will.Science again guys where is it?

My purpose for asking these questions is because Trekkies claim that Star Trek somehow has "evolutionized" science and that cell phones exist today because of Stat Trek.I'd like someone to answer what Star Trek has to do with science at all.DOn't take me for a Star Trek hater or accuse me of being one.I enjoy watching STar Trek(that is for pure entertainment purposes).By Trekkies always claiming that Star Trek is science or that it is "our future"(cool we get to meet elves from another planet one day,later to be called "vulcans"-sorry but a little satire here is needed) is only misinforming people.

And please limit the reponse to an answer (long or short) and let's not let it escelate into a Star Trek vs STar Wars discussion or anything.Im only trying to learn how science and STar Trek fit together.Nadirali 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Actually, this isn't the place for anything other than article improvement discussions. If there are any specific, actionable changes to Star Trek that you'd like to suggest, we can work from there. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If we should discuss improving the article on Star Trek,then I suggest it should be laballed fantasy drama or space fantasy instead of science fiction for the reasons I have stated above.Otherwise it's misinforming people.I dont think wikipedia is here for that.And as for discussion,Im not here to start any arguements,thats why Im here to inquire,why is it considered sceintific?I thought the discussion is also an oppertunity to learn?Thats all.Nadirali 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Please review WP:OR to see why we can't just change the classification without citing good references. If you can find persuasive evidence that it's actually classified as you described by reputable sources, then we can. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my most reliable srource http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html however,I'd like you to go through the ENTIRE SITE before judging it.I also parcially posted my questions to learn more about why star trek is considered to be "scientific".After all this is a site where we come to learn no?Nadirali 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I realise that what I'm going to say may sound VERY UPSETTING to you, but you'll have to read the Wikipedia policies regarding reliability of sources. I'd like you to go through the ENTIRE ARTICLE before posting here again. That will answer the questions that you have from failing to read the ENTIRE TWO SENTENCES by CHAIRBOY above. Val42 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture and fiction Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone.) Yes I read the article and quoted to prove I read it.That paragraph refers to wikipedia's policy regarding fictional stuff like star trek.

Oh and my source is quite reliable and wikipedia agrees. "Stardestroyer.net (SDN) is a science fiction information site and online community maintained by Michael Wong, primarily devoted to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate. SDN presents its case (in the Technology and Tactics sections) through the fictional narrative of an Imperial intelligence officer weighing the strategic and tactical balance between Star Wars' Galactic Empire and Star Trek's United Federation of Planets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neocapitalist/SDnetNadirali 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

No offense, but your entire train of thought violates WP:POINT --Mhking 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we all hold our tongues (eh, even though this is my first bit of chiming in) for a bit and let the second string take up this discussion. Nadirali, kick your feet up -- no doubt(?) someone else will come along and lend credence, or at least agree, with your ideas. Right? :Seriously, though -- you brought up similar "points" in the Star Wars discussion and they got you no where. If Star Trek fanboys and Star Wars fanboys can band together and pretty consistently argue that your assorted contentions are unfounded -- or at least don't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion -- that's gotta say something. --EEMeltonIV 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget I even asked.I came looking for answers(I even pleaded for answers only) not discussions.And both times I got lectures.So forget I even asked since I probably won;t find the answers i seek.Nadirali 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

• Please go to your user talk page where I have posted a lengthy response to your original lecture above. (In case Nadirali deletes it, I will keep a copy on my own User talk page). Darcyj 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

these things include items we have no idea how to do today, such as time travel, etc, and several possible ways we as humans may develop given time through eveloution. these are things that we cannot do scientifically today, but may eventually come to pass. that's where the fiction comes in, because while it may not be possible and we may not have any knowledge of it yet, they made theories of it, that while may not be scientifically acurate, make for the fiction of it. since it is fiction, to a large extent we have to suspend disbelieve and enjoy

Why does NO ONE point out the two SIMPLE 'space' TRUTHS this series ( and 'others', like 'S*** Wars' ) IGNORE ? these HORRIBLE flaws are constantly portrayed in MOST 'space' stories; is it done for a 'dumb' audience ? done 'accidentally' by dumb producers ? for 'marketing' ? or what might even be a warped sense of 'imagery portrayal political correctness' ? ONE. There is NO SOUND in SPACE !!!!!!!! phaser, torpedo, & other explosion SOUNDS are NA ! TWO. an orbiting ship, even one with 'generated gravity' would have it's 'bottom' closest to the surface of the planet it is orbiting ! i think EVERY starship or other craft i've seen orbit ('on screen', of course!) is portrayed/oriented with it's left engine/drive closest to the object it is orbiting. only in a FEW scenes, like when in 'space dock', is a "more" accurate portrayal made. yes, i UNDERSTAND the 'viewers' sense of 'up-and-down' is of 'concern', but let's INFORM everybody about REALITY ! PLEASE !! hopeful, but not waiting 4.243.143.252 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about sound in space, but that's one of the conventions to make science fiction more exciting. Babylon 5 did tactical space battles realistically, but it isn't around any more. Ones that lasted longer, among other things, have sound in space.

However, the orientation of a ship in orbit doesn't depend on what is "down" on the ship. The space shuttle often orbits to be facing towards or away from the Sun, depending on many factors. — Val42 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Red alert on VfD

Assistance is needed at Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia. It has been nominated for deletion, however is well referenced article worked on by several major Wikipedia contributors. Keep votes would be welcome. -Husnock 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to vote Delete and my reasons match those of the others on that VfD page. Darcyj 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You attracted another vote to Delete the article. I sympathize with you (see my vote comment), but the article is reaching, even for fancruft (and I like fancruft). Val42 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures!

I would like to suggest taking out the following pictures:

Animated 1701 Concept for Phase II 1701-E

The article seems somewhat overloaded with pictures, and these seem to be of the least importance.

ChunkySoup 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree, and I am not sure what your definition of "overloaded" might be. There is one, highly relevant, picture for each significant section of the article, and the pictures are neither overlarge nor does their placement impede a reader from following the text, and the article is not made overlong merely by the inclusion of the pictures (indeed, the article is a very comfortable length). Darcyj 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there anything on the owners, or board of directors, or I dunno..the people or company that runs star trek? seems like a pretty huge omission.24.188.75.110 08:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam Alert!

Some Idiot Deleted the whole article and replaced it with "It Sucks!" Of all the nerve! I love Star Trek! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.52.205 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

External link v. See also

What I have seen on other pages is that when an associated web site is sufficiently noteworthy in its own right to warrant its own Wikipedia entry, usually the references within Wikipedia to that site go to the Wikipedia article page, not directly to the site. Hence my edit. It was reverted by someone who changed the link in the first place, which to me is a lack of consensus, hence this post. Avt tor 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just plain weird if that sort of thing is happening elsewhere. If anything, this would prejudice articles to contain less notable links directly! We absolutely have to the link to Startrek.com in the Star Trek article. We can certainly have a internal link to the StarTrek.com article as well. Morwen - Talk 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

<shrug> I defer first to policy, second to consensus, third to prededent, and fourth to esthetic preference. Avt tor 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Morwen. McKay 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone's having fun

Reading the article it looks like this:

(Talking about TOS)

Star Trek is about a gay Sulu....and a captain that can't keep his dick in his pants! debuted in the United States...

I looked in on editing it, but I couldn't figure out where the sabotage was, so thought I'd better chime in here instead.

Edit: Looks like it's fixed now.

66.219.170.248 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm the vandal?

It appears I clicked the wrong button and restored the wrong version. My bad. Thanks to The_undertow for fixing this. Avt tor 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

haha. i passed the vandal torch to you! i found a 'clean' version so we are both cleared of the vandal stigma. everything is once again cool! The undertow 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First aired show was not captain Kirk

I seem to remember seing the pilot episode of Star Trek, not having captain Kirk but a captain Pike (I think) in the very first show aired. And a woman as his commanding officer Anyone know anything bout that? Shouldn't we write something about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.105.34.219 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. I don't think that captain pike is very notable in Star Trek lore (3 total episodes about him). Q, and the Borg are much more notable, and aren't noted on this page. Captain Pike is notable to be included in Wikipedia. He is mentioned in the TOS article (and even the TNG article) and the individual episodes about him (As well as a few others), he's in the Template:Enterprise captains too. I think he's got sufficient coverage. McKay 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The first episode aired was "The Man Trap" (with the salt monster). The unaired pilot with Captain Pike, the female Number One played by Majel Barrett, was filmed in 1964 but not aired by the network. The unaired pilot was later recut as background footage for the excellent two-part first-season episode "The Menagerie". I'm sure the unaired pilot has been aired by cable channels here and there in the years since, but it was not aired by NBC during the series run from 1966 to 1969. Avt tor 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

None of the starship images linked from this page have a correct fair use rationale. This should be rectified ASAP. JulesH 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidate??

An anonymous editor put the FAC tag on the article but did not list the article on the FAC list. There's been no discussion about this here. I invite people to comment on whether this nomination should be submitted. I'll start with my opinion:

• Oppose - I suggest (1) a review of reasons that the GA nomination was rejected, so that editors can satisfy themselves that all issues are addressed and clean up any outstanding issues, (2) a consensus that the article is ready for GA submission, (3) peer review, (4) GA nomination, (5) a further discussion about how to address remaining points to get the article to FA status. The article is pretty good and doesn't need a lot of work, but it won't help to have it shot down before it's quite ready. Avt tor 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think most of the reasons why the original featured article status was revoked still apply. The article is too short for the main article of such a major topic. It needs to go into a lot more depth on (a) the history of the subject and (b) the cultural impact it's had. GA may be achievable without this, FA certainly not. JulesH 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

References Page?

I cannot find the References to Star Trek page or any recored of its deletion (plenty of References to Star Trek in (ENETER SHOW NAME HERE), but none for the main page itself. Was it moved somewhere else and if it was deleted, when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.40.18 (talk • contribs)

Star Trek and religion

I think there should be a section, just as how the Star Wars articles flesh out the Force. IMHO, ST presents the Federation as Deist. There are many notable examples of religion in the ST universe that differ from Western religion, while religion is prominent in most alien species and seemingly irrelevant to the Federation. On the other hand, TOS seems more receptive to religion on the part of the Enterprise crew. Dr McCoy is one of them, but most say "Oh my God" at some point or another. What of V'Ger and its Creator? What of Sybok's quest in The Final Frontier, or Soren's in Generations? Even the Prime Directive seems in part based on Roddenberry's Baptist faith, in which a civilization is allowed to mature before they make a decision to join the Federation, as the Baptists do not believe in pedobaptism, but allow their children to make the choice to believe or not when they are ready. Some of it appears to have a Jewish, rather than Christian inflection. Regardless, the Eastern religions mostly appear to be part of alien worlds than the Alpha Quadrant Federation.

You may think this is frivolous and that Star Trek is the bastion or champion of left-liberal causes, but think again. Star Trek has a distinctly American and sometimes, European approach. I would find it hard to believe that there are editors here who refuse to hear me out, no matter how atheist/gay/communist you are. Recall that James T. Kirk was a character vehemently on the other side of where you stand, the brash American cowboy captain. Even the Enterprise is a euphemism for American capitalism, concieved of when the Cold War was at its social height--the 60's. To be precise, Star Trek is a Great Society for the future.

Les Invisibles 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's not a problem with that content in and of itself, but there really aren't any reliable sources that talk about it enough to become WP:NOTABLE. McKay 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What reliable/notable sources indicate that Star Trek is opposite of morality and religion, but is a secular hedonist paradise? All I have done is propose to draw from the movies and episodes that highlight religion and note in the section where religion is found and discussed as part of the series'. I'm not requesting a critique or analysis, but more a compilation--not of every single instance in which religion or philosophy are mentioned in the Star Trek universe, but which prominent ones are featured. One instance is Worf and the Klingon rituals, another is Spock and his Vulcan religion, another is whether Data as an android has a soul, another is the Bajoran Prophets and the Wormhole, another is the Adonis persona from TOS, another is when some alien pretends to be Satan and is put on trial by Picard over rights to a planet, another is the issue of the Q Continuum and their godlike powers, another is the ancient religious rites of the sun and the moon that Data and Picard play in roles--based upon finding an object that spawns sacred motifs onboard the Enterprise, another is the people who refused to leave their planet for the Cardassians and when the Traveler revealed himself to Wesley Crusher. We don't have to discuss the merits of these events in ST history, just note them. That is perfectly reasonable on the Wikipedia and violates no rules. If you think so, then bring in Jimbo himself. Les Invisibles 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability/reliability, hah!

How hypocritically quaint! James Earl Salisbury is an article you created about your father, yet you object to one section about the whole Trek U in which religion is noted? You don't think that religion is important, so what? The vast majority of people in this world do, whether they like it or hate it. Les Invisibles

I think you misunderstood me. First and foremost, you need to read WP:NOTE "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other", also, you need to see WP:OR, and WP:RS. I am *not* opposed to the content that was put in, but there were no sources, and no claims of such sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of fact, it is an encyclopedia of WP:VERIFYability. The content that was added to this page reaked of original research, and no sources were present. According to wikipedia policy I'm allowed to revert any unsourced assertions. This was the case for this new content (and it appeared to be WP:OR), so I removed it, and I stand by that decision. Feel free to add it again with sources that make the conclusions presented. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious and philosophical themes are important parts of sci-fi stories. All we need to do is provide examples of religion or philosophy, sourced from the material itself. To do more than that would require a source from an arts & humanities critic, but that is not the issue and yet, you still find a problem. I merely offered a rebuttal to those who have presented ST on Wikipedia as a bastion of their values, instead of let the material speak for itself as a diverse ficitional world that has a lot of different fans who don't necessarily believe that ST is the "secular-progressive" paradise. Why not join me in trying to balance the article with NPOV, instead of invent an argument to save your own ass? Les Invisibles 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to answer your personal attack about the James Earl Salisbury article. It's an ad hominem attack. But I'll briefly summarize why it's allowed. James Earl Salisbury is the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". If you have further qualms about the article, you should bring it up on it's talk page. McKay 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Casuistry and sophism are not impressive, but you are trying to say that "no" means "yes" and "yes" means "no". You are attacking me to secure your own tenuous legitimacy. You honk your horn and get on the cases of others to make yourself feel better. Why not own up to the glamour you attempt to apply to your father, while not being difficult where you know there would be no problem if it were another person who replied other than yourself? Les Invisibles 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us all try to verify material from reliable sources. Let us also avoid personal attacks, original research, and conflicts of interest. Avt tor 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Avt tor, this personality has entangled his weaknesses and begun a witchhunt to suppress others plausibly doing what he himself has done. His memorial to his father will be deleted in time, you just watch these frivolous obituaries get deleted. My dad is special too. His name is on his company's website, as well as membership lists of other organizations online. His name was featured in the obituary of my grandfather. The police have him on record as the brother of one who lost his life at the age of five by slipping under winter ice in a pond, in which the heroic policeman lost his life. There is a memorial in my hometown. I will NOT infect Wikipedia with that though, but Salisbury just doesn't get it, instead trying to make me feel bad or out of place. Les Invisibles 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you appreciate the value of WP:COI, but you need to look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. . The other editor did not "attack" you, he posted a one-sentence comment disagreeing with your long argument. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, you're attacking the guy's dead father; that's pretty cold, and it is certainly completely off-topic in this discussion. Avt tor 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I want religious information in the article about Star Trek. I would like to see such themes there. The problem is that according to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, the version you put up there needs to come down. Also, please do not bring up the article on my father here again. It is clearly an ad hominem logical fallacy to bring it up here, and will be considered a personal attack. McKay 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene was an atheist but did NOT force his atheism on anyone. He firmly believed in letting everyone real or fiction believe what they wanted. That was included in the Non-interference Directive. Ask Majel or B'jo or DC Fontana. I'm 100% certain that one or another will write something to satisfy the Wikipolice. I've met them all and they are really nice and support their fans.

Professor Ross noting religious elements in Star Trek:

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm Neustriano 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to say whether or not it is a good article. It's WP:OR. McKay 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Phase II' from this page

I think that the entire section of 'Phase II' should be removed from this article. This has been mentioned a few times already, but I think this should now be discussed and voted on. 'Phase II' plays a tiny, tiny role in the Star Trek phenomenon, not having even produced a single episode. It's hard to describe to a friend what Star Trek is, when sending him/her a link to this page, only to be followed by an email to explain that one should ignore the 'Phase II' section. Thoughts? enderminh 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since it plays a tiny role within Star Trek's official production line enderminh 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa now, this ain't no dang ol' poll, it's a discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's worth a mention, and the section isn't too long. Also, the picture is interesting. Perhaps a mention of it along with a new page that discusses Star Trek projects that began and didn't materialize or something. The Academy TV series, Phase II, movies that were substantially reworked past recognizability from the early incarnations, etc. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some pretty impressive resources went into developing Phase II, many of which were manifested in The Motion Picture. It may not have borne fruit under the "Phase II" label, but it was siphoned into other projects. It's worth keeping here. --EEMeltonIV 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Phase II was important, but does it really belong between TAS and TNG in "TV Series", it wasn't ever made into a television series, so I personally think it's wrong there. Maybe we could create a history section, and put a little blurb there about it? It might fit nicely in "Other storylines and canonicty"? there has been little (but some) leaked about possible storylines for the 9th-11th movies that kinda represent "failed movies" but we don't put them in the movies section. Sure Phase II is more notable then any of those failed movies, but it wasn't actually a television series. McKay 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Phase II already has an article of its own. How about getting rid of this section in this page, and add a sentence to the Television series section that says something like (changes italized) "The Original Series was canceled after its third season due to low ratings, it has served as the foundation for five additional Star Trek television series as well as a six series that was in planning but never materialized. Altogether, the six broadcasted series comprise a total of 726 episodes ..." enderminh 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Franchise

I'd like to make a comment on the opening sentence of the article: "Star Trek is an American science fiction franchise". I don't really agree with the word "franchise" having such prominence here. Sure, Star Trek has become a big franchise in the business world and a lot of money is being made out of it, but I don't feel that a "franchise" gets to the core of defining in an initial sentence what Star Trek really is. Anyone else agree? Prlewis0 08:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, however, I can't think of a better word. Possible alternatives: "Star Trek is an American science fiction... show/production/drama/creation"enderminh 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• I couldn't really think of a better word either, hence why I didn't suggest one! :-) But yeah... perhaps simply "creation" is better. References to the extensive franchise could then be made lower down. Thoughts? Prlewis0 12:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm, it's kinda a "universe" isn't it. What about "entertainment series" or something like that? define:Star Trek produces "successful science fiction TV drama" which is too specific as per "TV". Just my quarter. McKay 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like "entertainment series" more than "franchise" and "creation". The word "universe" is only understood by Sci-Fi fans, but other people reading this will not understand what is meant with "Star Trek is an American science fiction universe". Any other thoughts by anyone else, before we change it to ... say "entertainment series"? enderminh 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Entertainment series" sounds reasonable enough to me... Prlewis0 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I've made a couple of changes to reflect this discussion. Prlewis0 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• It seems that someone changed the first line back to 'franchise', changing the primary definition from 'entertainment series'. I really don't think that the first definition of what Star Trek is should be a franchise owned by a particular company. Also, please contribute to discussions in progress before just making changes like this. Anyway, I've made an edit which I hope will keep both sides happy. Prlewis0 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Communism?

Mabye this is just my own interpretation, but it seems fairly obvious to me that there are certain communist ideals present in Star Trek; the lack of currency, the fact that everyone works for the benefit of everyone else without the drive of wealth. I can't remember exactly which, but in a Next generation episode several chryogenically frozen humans are found from the 2oth century. One of those is looking forward to collecting the results of hundreds of years of interest, yet cannot collect because of the disappearance of currency. The crew members seem bemused by this drive for wealth. Surley this ideal deserves a mention? Monkeymox 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The episode you're looking for is "The Neutral Zone". If you can find a verifiable source which discusses Star Trek vs communism, feel free to add it. Jpers36 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there used to be a themes section that is no longer present. Has this been relocated? I believe this would be more relevant in a themes section (provided i find evidence) Monkeymox 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Currency as we now know it isn't real. No one barters for gold. Some people still lust for gold, but barbarians no longer invade Rome for gold. Gene believed in a world where like Sparta, if there was NO money, there would be no reason for war. If a synthesizer or replicator could produce ANYTHING, why fight? That's not Communism.

There are constant references in the show and movies to "credits" or "gold press latinum" etc. It's quite clear that people still work to get money or similar. In Star Fleet, presumably, just as the military is essentially communistic, they need not worry about such things because all their needs are provided. Still they do use "credits".

69.181.188.254 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Tampering with Memory Alpha Links?!

Someone had been removing links throughout wikipedia star trek articles to Memory Alpha. Is there a policy behind this or is someone unjustly tampering? I think the links to Memory Alpha should be kept for greater facility in comparing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.122.203 (talk • contribs)

They're not being removed; another user turned the text link into a little infobox-ish thing. Look on the right side of the screen. --EEMeltonIV 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Does someone know where the lost Star Trek series have gone or even it's name?

I have seen a Star Trek series on VHS back in the 80's and it was possible to hire it in the video shops in Stockholm at the same time as Star Trek TNG. I am not shure about the complete name of this series, but it was something like Excalibur, Excelsior or even New Frontieer (Something) (This series was NOT the original, it was NOT Deep Space Nine, it was NOT Voyager or Enterprise, it was another series with real actors).

It was possible to even purchase this series on VHS in the shops back in 1995. And suddenly it was lost, gone forever? I haven't seen it since 1995. Does someone old enough (over 30) remeber it? Or have someone more than myself seen it? Or does someone know why it's gone? It was back in the 80's and once in 1995, so my memory of it isn't so good. :-(

Finaly, don't say that it doesn't excist just because you haven't seen it, or that I have done a mix up with some other Star Trek series, because I have not. Don't say that it must have been a fan made series, because it was NOT.

Greetings from Tom

The only series that was at all started with production that did not air is Star Trek: Phase II. Other than that, I know you didn't want it said, but it had to either not exist, or was a fan made series. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. --OuroborosCobra 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be TOS, or it could be TAS? New Frontiers was a licensed Book series, but that was in the 90s. McKay 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I was wondering if we could start a Star Trek history section. Not of the universe, but of the show. Like how Roddenberry came up with the idea in the first place. the fact that the franchise's ownership changed from NBC to paramount, the trekunited attempts to save the series enterprise. that should clean a lot of things up and make this page and make this article more encyclopedic. Oldag07 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the page is too big as it is, but feel free to create a separate article, like History of Star Trek or something. McKay 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

this page is 34,052 bytes. My university page, with just got FA status was 87000ish. we got plenty of spaceOldag07 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it happened to them doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the WP:SIZE guidelines, which states 32k is the general guideline. Having said that, a summary section on History should be here anyway, even if we have a page for it. McKay 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Current status and future and star trek phase ii can be absorbed into such a summary. should keep the length down. any suggestions on where to start research? btw, do you want me to archive this talk page, it is massive.Oldag07 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the obvious source for starting a history of Trek would be Stephen Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek, published in, I believe, 1968. It went through many reprintings, and detailed the genesis of the first series.

Mark Sublette 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, there should be a history section or article.

69.181.188.254 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

The article isn't comprehensive enough yet. There's barely anything about the show and the film's creation, and if the lead summarises the article why are none of the themes of the franchise discussed in the article? Alientraveller 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help on an ST article

I need ST editors who are more experienced than I to deal with the situation that is rapidly developing over at Battle of Wolf 359. User:EEMeltonIV did a large chop last night and cut out a list of ships that is factually mentioned and referenced in Star Trek episodes. His reason was that he didnt feel such a list deserved to be in the article and he then became sarcastic on the talk page when I reverted his changes. I've had a few run-ins with this guy and he usually degrades to sarcasm and borderline name calling when he doesnt get his way. His crowning achievement was bringing up a months old closed Arb Com case in an edit summary as an attempt to cast a shadow on another editor [5]. At this point, other editors need to become involved. He is removing factually referenced material from articles. Time to put a stop to it. Thank you. -38.119.112.187 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek. --EEMeltonIV 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A good MATURE suggestion. Thank you! Thats all that we need to make this work. I wont have time to pursue it further as the real world calls. But now other Trek editors may get involved and fix as you suggested. An MA link has already been added. That probably would do just as well. -38.119.112.190 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

I have seen most of the Star Trek shows and movies, and I have noticed that, while they always say stuff about earth being 'united' most everyone speaks with American accents and looks American, with most cultural references being American. This is funny since with the 'united earth' with 'everyone working to further humanity', communism is what they seem to have (which by the way, would never work).

I also notice that, while they talk about the 'federation' of many alien species, that almost all of Star-Fleet crews are human.

Seems to me that this these things should be talked about in the article. 65.27.139.162 11:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(changed grammar, spelling, punctuation)

I think Star Trek made clear that, often, Star Fleet crews would have fairly homogeneous crews in order to avoid the problems of having people not breathing the same air mixtures, etc. on the same ship and avoiding the concomitant problems.

69.181.188.254 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek soundtracks deletion

Someone is trying to delete the ctaegory Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go to the talk page, and try to keep this category in existence. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)