Talk:Star Trek/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

Although Roddenberry is repeatedly quoted as having conjured up StarTrek as a space-age "Wagon Train" -- which was a really topnotch TV series and I greatly miss it -- I suspect that his more immediate inspiration was a lesser known, but somewhat similar episodic series called RIVERBOAT (starring Darren McGavin and a young Burt Reynolds, and later a not-so-young Noah Berry Jr, circa 1960-61). It described the adventures of the crew of a Mississippi steamer, circa 1850 (one of the episodes was about young Abe Lincoln and his -- this is real -- patent for an invention to aid with riverboat salvage) ... and the boat was named The Enterprise!  :} Sussmanbern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.176.194 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Susan Sackett

The reference to Susan Sackett in the introduction should be deleted. First of all, she was Gene Roddenberry's secretary, not his "assistant writer." Second, she didn't start working with him until 1974, long after the end of the original series. (Both of these statements are per her Wikipedia entry.) I have nothing against her, but she had no significant impact on the development of the series, and she doesn't belong in an introduction to the entire Star Trek mythos. Jhlechner 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make the changes if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done as requested above by new user. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is kind of strange

It could be argued that the Federation is socialistic while the Romulans, Klingons and many other races are governed by psuedo-fascist systems, however there are capitalist systems as well. What about the Ferengi, don't they fit the definition of lassez-faire capitalists? Obviously reference should be made to their devotion to classical liberalism or "unfettered capitalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 18:55, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

__ I've had this conversation with hard-core anarcho-libertarians before. Essentially their argument is that Capitalism is the highest form (and only valid form) of human endeavour and anyone who thinks differently is a dirty frikkin' commie hippy bolshevik. The thing is that Star Trek has claimed, in various episodes, that the basic wants of all people can easily be met by replicator technology so there's no need to engage in dog-eat-dog laissez-faire commerce. Instead, people spend their time exploring things other than a work-a-day job. This leads to advances in science, the arts and whatnot. On the other hand, Star Trek does depict various merchants, traders, miners, businesses, etc. and makes no claim that commerce is dead or that there is any sort of social-coercive re-distribution of wealth structure going on. One anarcho-lib of my acquaintance used to whine that the Ferengi were Star Trek's only depiction of Capitalists (of course he did look a lot like a Ferengi, so maybe he was projecting). In the end, Star Trek, I think, tries to make the point that there should be more to life than a 9 to 5 job. That with sufficient technology at hand, people will be freed from the rat race and mankind's spirit and mind can begin to truly flourish. The idea that a prosperous society can (and, perhaps for moral reasons, should) provide for the basic needs of all its citizens while still promoting self-reliance and risk-taking is an idea that seems to stick in the craw of many modern so-called Capitalists. Much like Vidal's comment that it is "insufficient that I be successful, my friends must also fail" for him to feel fulfilled, the modern Caplitailst seems to feel that it is not sufficient for him to succeed, but others must suffer (preferably horribly) or he cannot feel fulfilled.

Star Trek is hardly "Socialist." On the other hand, it's not for real. We might as well be arguing about the horrible un-fairness that none of the characters ever needs to go to the bathroom.

This section should also be renamed "Criticisms" rather than the current "Hostile Criticism" to allow the nature of an objective encyclopedic entry be asserted and not a biased spin on the section, the readers should judge for themselves if the criticisms are hostile or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeamerPi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by stevegray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are many problems in the criticism section, and I think it needs reworking. The "pseudoscience" criticisms didn't reflect very well the reference sources used. Neither were attack pieces, they simply wrote interesting analyses of which technologies in star trek were scientifically plausible or realized and which were implausible. Both references acknowledged that Star Trek made no pretense that it was factual or accurate. Star Trek never pretended to be science, but were "entertainment". The term pseudoscience does not apply to fiction which admits it is fiction. OMNI magazine is used as a source for the Ross critic who feels Star Trek is communistic, which is very doubtful. I've read 1/2 the article, can't find the rest, but there's no suggestion in the first half that the OMNI piece is interested in anything other than the physics questions.
• I suspect that overall the criticism section is guilty of imparting undue weight to some criticisms. Just because some criticism is published in some fashion doesn't mean it must be added to the article here. Normally, entertainments like television programs, movies, etc., are criticized by media critics for issues like production value, story line, performances, etc. But the criticism section here seems to pull in quirky complaints from relative obscurity.Professor marginalia 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The criticism section is definitely unbalanced: no FA/GA article uses the term as a dumping ground for any negative criticism. Criticism is both negative and positive, and should not give undue weight over Star Trek as one of the most popular and influential sci-fi institutions. Alientraveller 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it became a dumping ground. I did find copies of the Ross essay but can't confirm that it was ever independently published. It looks like a self-publish so far. I fact tagged it to stir up a cite, but still think it's undue weight. It doesn't look sufficiently noteworthy to me-all I see so far is that it's stirred just slight attention in a few blogs, but so what? There are a million self published opinions blogged daily, but that doesn't make them noteworthy.Professor marginalia 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a whole separate article "Criticisms of Star Trek", which was kind of ridiculous, and seemed to be little more than a battleground for people to argue about whether Star Wars is "better" than Star Trek. I mean it's a TV show, get a life. Anyway that article was, quite rightly, deleted and the material that wasn't dependent on blog references was merged into this article. However even the stuff that's here now is pretty weak and pointless - the issues about declining ratings for the later series can be or already are included in the relevant sections; as noted there is in fact no "criticism" of the show for promoting pseudoscience in the cited source; and referencing a minor columnist/journalist's thoughts and opinions seems a bit irrelevant as well. I'm taking an axe to some of it, and the rest of it should probably go as well, or at least be moved into other parts of the article. --Nickhh 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use a phaser rather than an axe next time; you took out a reference that was re-used further down. The footnote makes it clear that only one page of the cited source is available on-line; unless you have a copy of the whole article, you have no grounds to delete the statement as unreferenced. Perhaps I should delete the link to the Internet Archive and merely cite the original with no link. Does a source cease to be verifiable just because it is no longer on-line? I assume not, as printed materials are allowed as references.

I think it was me who merged part of the "Criticisms" article back into this one (in demonstrable objectivity) when it was deleted. However, the Prof's points above are well made, and I won't object if the whole section is now deleted, as no-one was able to add verifiable sources for the more weighty criticisms that have already been removed. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I took out the reference was it didn't suppport the claim that was being made of it (that the show was being criticised for promoting pseudoscience). When I removed the text from the article, the reference went too of course. I didn't realise it was also being used as a source for the Ross essay - but as far as I recall it wasn't used as the source for that in the original "Criticisms" article, nor did it actually appear to be about the Ross essay. That essay is available online elsewhere so there can be a direct cite to it - as there used to be - if it is considered an appropriate element of this article. Also I note that another editor has now removed the weasel words from this section - but with the result that instead we have some very bold original research eg "productions of late .. have been formulaic .. lacking in depth". Anyway I guess this is all pretty academic as there seems to be a pretty clear and well argued consensus on this talk page that the section can all go anyway. It's all either undue weight, original research or POV. Or rather was. --Nickhh 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just for the record, could someone post a link here on the talk page to the complete Ross essay, even though we've decided that it should not be referred to in the article? How about the Omni article - is the whole thing online anywhere? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem now adays

Something that I would like to be added to the Star Trek series of articles somewhere. I have one major criticism about how the current star trek series are being handled. They have completely abandoned Gene Roddenberry's original idea of space exploration. The whole series is founded on the idea of exploring space and having fun! It is about learning and discovery and our future as mankind. It is about how we should go forward as a civilization to the stars. Not this crap about time travel and battles and other nut-case stuff as seen in Enterprise, not sitting still and waiting for people to come and attack you as in Deep Space Nine, and definitely not about a sitcom in school as this new Enterprise movie is going to be about. These types of criticisms are NEVER seen in the articles. Am I the only one (other than my father) that has this view? The whole idea of star trek is about discovery and exploration and most most importantly optimism. The one reason I see that we won't see another good star trek series for QUITE some time is that society in general today is pessimistic. Star trek was optimistic about the future, and THAT is why it worked so well. The current mad attempts at making profitable series/movies are just nuts. The current idiot directors/producers have blamed it on "franchise fatigue." I was kind of ranting there but I hope my point came across. Ergzay 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to self edit myself but I have a few more things to add. Some things that were good about Enterprise were some of the earlier episodes namely ones like Civilization which were about exploration. A type of series we do not see on TV today is the exploration genre. We also hardly ever see optimism anywhere, especially in the movie/television industry. It is so EASY to make a good star trek series yet some of the best directors/producers are struggling with the concept. You simply need to be optimistic, use a space exploration concept, and in every episode have the cast meeting new and interesting races/planets/nebulae/cultures/social ideas/etc. Another movie that was similar in many ways to star trek in this concept was the original Stargate movie (not the idiotic fight fest of the Stargate SG1 set of series). Ergzay 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is that it's really your point of view - talking about rubbish involving time travel and battles is a criticism that can surely be equally validly aimed at the original series - one favourite episode "City at the Edge of forever" involves time travel, and many of the better TOS episodes involve the federation's battles with various Klingons - conflict is in many ways necessary for drama (a problem which seemingly came to a head towards the end of Roddenberry's life when his insistence that the Next Generation crew could not have arguments because they would have outgrown such conflict caused problems with the people having to actually make interesting drama out of that). Your concerns are probably better expressed in the various fan forums than on this site - because surely an encyclopedic article must limit itself to describing the history and nature of the Star Trek we have rather than becoming a wish list for the ideal Star Trek you might hope somebody could revive. PaulHammond (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems Gene's utopian fantasy extended to the idea humanity only survived by removing all interpersonal conflict. Even in a utopia, people can have ambition; notice how those with ambition are treated: as villains. Trekphiler (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the charges that Julius Caesar's enemies leveled against him was that he was ambitious.--RLent (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek's first year launch

According to The History Channel, they said that Star Trek was first aired back in 1964, but NBC cancelled the series. However, NBC gave the series another chance and aired officially in 1966. King Shadeed 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The History Channel have made mistakes before (see Talk:Krak des Chevaliers#Walls). I personally would need a better source (or at least a specific attribution with programme, episode, and date) before I would include that. Perhaps they meant the original pilot was presented in 1964, but rejected. Quite a difference in meaning. 71.204.204.249 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The copyright at the end of the NEVER-AIRED "The Cage" is 1964. Other sources (Extra Features on one of the Star Trek DVDs) has Roddenberry stating unequivically that he approached Desilu in 1964 with The Cage.

Either this person heard wrong on SciFi, or, SciFi was in error. The Cage never aired over broadcast TV, and was only shown to test audiences at the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, The Cage was not seen by the public until Paramount released the home VHS in 1986, in a Color & Black & White version that transitioned between Color for the parts that were used in "The Menagerie" and B&W for the parts that hadn't been seen yet. Gene Roddenberry appears in an introduction on the tape. JoeD80 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

The third paragraph is almost entirely unsourced POV. Its only reference is an article by somebody arguing that Star Trek is sexist, oddly given as a source for saying Star Trek addessed feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohsoh (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that reference covers several issues and supports the whole comment about the 1960s series. I've moved it within the paragraph. Most of the rest of the para seems factual, non-controversial and self-evident to me; what elements of it do you consider POV? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV--

• The protagonists are essentially altruists
• whose ideals are sometimes only imperfectly applied to the dilemmas presented in the series.
• The conflicts and political dimensions of Star Trek form allegories for contemporary cultural realities;
• the original Star Trek television series addressed issues of the 1960s

Ohsoh 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the first to be contentious. The other three are all supported by the reference, e.g. the paragraph in the external source about episode "A Private Little War" under heading "Militarism and Peace". - Fayenatic (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Ooooh. Rarely do I get an opportunity to review something so fun, I thought I'd pounce on it! Definitely some concerns though:

1. The third paragraph in the lead is a POV piece that is not properly discussed or referenced in the main body of the article. In addition, the lead overall fails to summarize the article (for just one example, it does not touch on the "Current status and future" section) and contains questionable and vague facts. For example, although information in the lead does not generally need citations (as it is supposed to be cited in the body of the article), statements that have a very high potential of being challenged ("The TV series alone is said to be one of the biggest cult phenomena of modern times.") definitely require a citation.
2. The image USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg does not have a proper fair use rationale for this article. Nor does the image TAS title.jpg or VoyagerStarship.jpg or Star Trek poster.jpg
3. In addition, many of the images do not have proper captions explaining their significance to the article, not to mention that all captions must end in a period.
4. Under "Television series," the sentence "See Lengths of science fiction film and television series for more on comparative series lengths." should be taken out and re-worded to fit more appropriately in a "See also" section.
5. Under "Television series," this: "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes and ten theatrical films (with an 11th in the works) across twenty-two different television seasons (twenty-nine, if one separately counts seasons running concurrently), making it the second most prolific science-fiction franchise in history after Doctor Who." seems a little ORish, in the sense that it seems to be a synthesis of previously uncollected facts. Is there a citation for it? It would put my mind at ease.
6. Some statements require a citation:

   "The remastered episodes currently air in syndication while the originals appear on TV Land, MyNetworkTV channel, G4 (TV channel), Sci Fi in Australia, The Sci-Fi Channel in the UK and, additionally, on BBC2 in the UK, although these broadcasts are infrequent and irregular." (Star Trek: The Original Series (1966–1969))

   "The series currently airs on Spike TV in the United States and Virgin 1 in the UK." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999))

   "The first season is also available on the iTunes Store." (Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)) and (Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005))

   "Roddenberry explicitly intended the show to have a political agenda, as can be heard in phrases like "Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped." (Spock in 'Armageddon'). Harking of human diversity and contemporaneous political circumstances, Roddenberry included a multi-ethnic crew. Star Trek showed mankind what it might develop into, if only it would learn from the lessons of the past, most specifically by ending violence. An extreme example are the Vulcans, who had a very violent past but learned to control their emotions." (Cultural impact)

   "Parodies of Star Trek include the internet-based cartoon series Stone Trek, the song Star Trekkin' by The Firm and the feature film Galaxy Quest." (Mainly for the fact that Galaxy Quest is a parody, since the others are fairly self-evident)

   The first half of the criticism section.

   "The original series' characters are also featured in a manga." (Current status and future)

7. The sentence "The show chronicles the events of the station's crew, led by Commander (later Captain) Benjamin Sisko, played by Avery Brooks, living on the Cardassian-built Bajoran spacestation Deep Space Nine, near a uniquely stable wormhole that provides immediate access to the distant Gamma Quadrant." under "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999)" is incredibly run-on. It should be split into at least two separate sentences.
8. The section "Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)" seems part POV, part wishy-washy. Statements like "Voyager takes place at about the same time..." and "which is probably like the..." are not encyclopedic in nature. If there is ambiguity, it should be phrased encyclopedically. For example: "Although it is not known when Voyager takes place, it has been suggested that the series occurs at about the same time..." and then ref ref ref.

You are so full of.... Voyager actually started as a crossover episode of Deep Sleep Nine. Several episodes of both shows after the kickoff episode of Voyager include crossovers from the one show appearing on the other show. The events of Voyager do happen at approximately the same time. Encyclopedias are supposed to be definitive, not ambiguous like you suggest it should be. It is clearly known when Voyager takes place, and that is in parallel with Deep Sleep Nine. IMHO, both series blow chunx, but, it really irks me when people like you come along and pull this crapola.

1. The intro to the "Films" section gives undue weight to the upcoming Star Trek film.
2. There are citations (and I can enumerate them in my second review) do not use citation templates.

To allow for these issues to be addressed, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. Note also that this is only a preliminary assessment of the article and when and if these concerns are addressed, I will review the article a second time and bring up anything I may have missed the first round (and as I am very tired at the moment, I suspect that I have missed a lot). Cheers, CP 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my original hold will expire in a few minutes and the only thing that's changed from my original review is that the article seems to have become less stable. Since it's not likely that all the above changes can be made and that the article can be made stable within the hour, I am going to fail the article. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to Good Article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Available on iTunes

Er, isn't it a blatant commercial plug to mention this in respect of some of the series? Arguably it's interesting to note where and how a show can be viewed, and for example when a TV channel is mentioned it is making the point that repeats still air regularly. But should Wikipedia really be providing free advertising? --Nickhh 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Trek Article Series

I think the Star Trek pages are badly in need of being placed into a series, like we would with other topics (eg American History). This will allow better access to information and re-inforce the fact that the articles deal with a fictional program. Rotovia 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trek on the BBC

I've not stayed up late enough to catch the poorly scheduled BBC showings of Star Trek, are they really showing the digitally cleaned up episodes? Alastairward (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I need sleep, the article simply says they are repeated, not that they are digitally cleaned up.Alastairward (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep on Trekkin'

Three issues. Gene "forced Paramount not to count STTAS as canon". How? Why? Source? Second, "Tiberius" confirmed as canon in "ST:TVH"? It's in Gene's novelization of "ST:TMP". (I know, I won a copy. Just don't ask me for the p#; it's in storage someplace...) Third, can somebody back up the claim "ST:V" is closest to Gene's original vision for "ST:TOS"? I've seen Making of Star Trek, which claims the idea was "Hornblower in space", but Whitfield's not exactly tops for reliability... Trekphiler (talk) 13:16, 13:21, & 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think shatners memoirs discusses the Hornblower thing, but the other half has them at the moment. SGGH ^speak! 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The startrek.com faq [1] suggests that everything that we see on screen (big and small) in live action is canon and everything else is perhaps not. Going by that, the name "James Tiberius Kirk" is canon because it appears in The Undiscovered Country, when it predates even TMP by appearing in an episode of the animated series.

The source cited is as follows:

"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, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind...In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule: the Jeri Taylor- penned books "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters and were to be considered as references by writers on the show. Now that the show is over, some of those events may never be incorporated into a live action format, so the question of whether details from these novels remain canon is open to interpretation...With regard to the Animated Series, there are a few details from the episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, that reveal biographical background on Spock and planet Vulcan. Details from this episode have been successfully incorporated into the canon of Star Trek (such as in "The Forge") and now that the Animated Series is out on DVD, we hope that even more can make its way in!"

Three questions immediately spring to mind. In decreasing order of importance, they are:

1. Who wrote this unsigned commentary? Are they notable in and of themselves? Exceptional statements require exceptional sources.
2. Who ever said that we at Wikipedia even consider canonicity issues? We do not.
3. Why are we still discussing this? That Kirk's middle name is Tiberius is cited and it is almost trivial - and fan forum-ish to keep on about it.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "excessive or improper use of copyrighted images"

User:Pd THOR just added Template:Non-free to the section "Television series," and I would have to agree. Before any drastic changes are made, however, we need to consider the following facts:

1. In several cases, the pictures do not contribute to the identification of the series. I doubt anyone coming to this page would need the Phase II or The Animated Series images to help in series identification. If the images are not necessary on this page, specifically, they should not be shown here.
2. In many cases, the images lack fair use rationales for their inclusion on this page. Specifically, the screenshots from Phase II, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise lack fair use rationales specifically for this page. In addition, the rationales of the other images are, in some cases, lacking.

Therefore, I would suggest that we remove the images for Phase II and The Animated Series from this page (there are still identifying images on the respective individual articles) and fix/update/include fair use rationales on the other images. Could a more veteran Wikipedia user comment on whether or not this would be sufficient? —LinkTiger (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. About the prop replica picture from Vulcan, Alberta: I edited the image caption and relocated its position to specifically identify it as a prop replica based on Star Trek: Phase II design, and was never actually seen in any of the series or features. However, I believe that is should be removed completely from this article, and perhaps instead included in a sub page dedicated to this never produced series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetWorkee (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Major Villains

I have rewritten this section, hopefully other users will think it is an improvement, but if not please leave a message on my talk page or discuss it here. SGGH ^speak! 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the non free tag seems redundant, as it is accusing the section of having images or audio files that are non free, when the section has no images or audio files. I'll remove it but someone can revert me if they feel the tag has a reason to be there. SGGH ^speak! 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a more broad history section would be more in line with the rest of the page.Oldag07 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW SERIES ANYONE HEAR ANYTHING I WOULD LOVE TO SeE RIKER AS MAIN STAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.104.174 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

Why is a unofficial film included in a table of official releases? it should be removed. I'd do it but the page is locked. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Fan films

An editor is trying to insert this fan film into the film section - I would argue that it gives undue weight to a single fan production. a line might be appropriate in the cultural influence section but that's about it. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is sufficient reason to discuss the many fan films that are out there, though it does not - in my estimation - rise to the same level of note that the official productions do. While some of them are quite good, to give them equal footing to official productions in indeed an undue weight issue. Perhaps as a subsection in cultural impact, or a separate section after feature films entitled Fan Films. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Fan Film?

Perhaps we need a definition of fan film. I a fan film automatically any film that Paramount did not produce? For example, if the following is true:

a) Star Trek insignia, events from episodes, hardware (starships etc.) are used b) The familiar actors (who worked for Paramount) represent their original Star Trek characters in the plot c) Soundtrack from Star Trek is used in the film

Is it a "fan film?"

Here is another example: Recall the James Bond series. Was not one of the films produced by someone other than Broccoli? There was one movie that did not come from the same studio and director, yet it was "James Bond" and was released in theatres. Is that defined as a fan film of the James Bond genre? 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

Actually, no - because in that case, because of a lawsuit over character copyrights and author's rights, the filmmakers had the rights to use the story behind one of the previous films - Thunderball, I believe. In that case, Never Say Never Again was a completely legal and above-the-board production. To date, not a single Trek fan-film can claim that. Some may get away with it through tacit understandings or verbal agreements (New Voyages/Phase II, OGaM), but they are in no way authorized productions, and should not be listed as such. There is a separate article specifically for those, and that is linked already. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

that was licensed production under a contractual relational, an entirely different thing. Also PLEASE sign your posts with the signature tool. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes: 17:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel(Raryel) (talk)

I now know what happened: I typed 5 tildes, not four. Raryel (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

Type *nothing* but the four tildes at the end of your comments. You're still adding too much text for a signature. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Truly objectionable content would influence lawyers

One fan of the Simpsons Tv show created a picture of Bart Simpson saying something homophobic. That got the animator upset. Similarly, somebody suggested a Barbie doll as a prostitute and Mattel's lawyers were all over it. The content of the fan films in Star Trek is mostly in character with the accepted themes and storyline, right? So perhaps they help keep people interested in star Trek and therefore help push customers into the theatres to see the Paramount productions. Now let's see if I've learned to sign correctly. Here goes: Raryel (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can find it I'll link it, but the interesting thing about Trek is that it's largely Public Domain. Before you jump all over me, let me explain. Star Trek has been around so long and become so pervasively influencial in global society that the majority of the franchise is considered fair game for fair use; "live Long and Prosper", "Beam me up, Scotty", and other notables have become free use. As long as the use is not for profit and non-defamatory then pretty much anyhting "official" can be used without fear of reprisal. Of course any copyright notices would have to be kept intact, so we should just add those to the tagline on any photos used. Think about it: how much would litigation cost Paramount if they went after everybody that posted a Trek image on their websites? It's just not feasible; they have better things to spend their money on -- like the 2009 Trek movie ;) VulpineLady (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Viacom's reluctance to swallow the cost of suing -- or even mailing cease-and-desist letters -- to copyright violators != public domain. Regardless of your misinterpretation of copyright law, non-free content's use at Wikipedia must follow WP:NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I understand all that...forgive the lack of clarity - this was a court ruling some time back over non-profit fan use of Star Trek material. It'll take some time to even verify if it's posted online let, alone locate a link for it, but ill hunt for it as I get time.VulpineLady (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek villains

I am not sure it is appropriate for the section to even be in the article. At best it seems it could be a feeder (supplementary) article, while at worst, it is crufty cruft-cruft. I don't think it belongs, but considering how mass reverts have resulted in at least one person getting blocked for edit-warring, it might be more calm to simply talk about these changes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove it again. It wasn't part of that edit-war cycle. If someone wants to try to restore it, we can discuss it here. --EEMIV (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss the matter somewhat before playing it out via reverted edit summaries. I am well-known for despising zealotry, so Trekkies/Trekkers/whatever are going to get very little rhythm for including stuff that is a by-product of fandom. That said, I am in favor of discussion, not fait accompli. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit-war cycle. Perhaps the two editors who removed material intended one (only they know that and I do not presume to know); I most certainly did not intend one. The blocking will be dealt with in dispute resolution and in the admin abuse procedures in Wikipedia. 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raryel (talk • contribs)

The person who added it was an admin. Oldag07 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. here is where it was added. an ip address 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Where no man...?

As both a long-time SF buff & long-time Trekker, I'm astounded there's no TV task force in WPSF... If 1 gets started, be sure & tag this, this, this, & this, for starters. (I was also a fan of them as a kid.) Trekphiler (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not start one yourself? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's easy and fast. Maybe you could be leader, or captain, of the Taskforce. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain picard's bald head (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thematic Categorization of video episodes

I am considering categorizing video episodes by themes such as war, politics, ethics, medical ethics' or 'slavery' or 'war' or 'family' or 'betrayal' or 'death' etc to allow readers to easily find episodes that deal with particular issues by creating the following.

• 1. List of themes across the series
• 2. List of episodes with a particular theme
• 3. Listing of episode themes for a specific episode on its page.

I guess it would work like this. At the end of an episode page page would be list 3 or 4 categories, of theme, for that episode for example 'medical ethics'. Following that link would bring a reader to a category page with a listing of all star trek episodes that have the same theme of 'medical ethics'. Or from the other direction would be a list of 'star trek themes' say 20 or 30 and one of these would be 'medical ethics' or 'slavery' or 'war' or 'family' or 'betrayal' or 'death' and so on.

There are already categories or lists for a particular actor, species or plot device eg time travel and i think that the best way to do it would be to use category lists at the bottom of episodes as these are automatically added to a category list when included on an articles page. This is in comparison to info boxes which seem to require more work and take up more space.

There may be potentially difficult issues arising from having a type of list that is softer or more ambiguous and open to personal interpretation than other more definite lists.

The categories should not be so broad as to apply to an excessive number of episodes and not so specifically narrow as to apply to only one or two.

This would also have to fit in with the existing structure of pages without being disruptive.

Does anyone know how best to go about this and if it already exists in some form, whether its been tried before elsewhere and generally what you think of this idea--Theo Pardilla (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guest actors?

Not sure when this section popped up, but it strikes me as of questionable relevance and not particularly well done. It makes a lot of assertions without sources (such-and-such was a fan, etc). The stories may be well-known to fans, but that doesn't meet the guidelines. It's also missing a heck of a lot of more famous examples and is quite inconsistent (why a table for films and a few random paragraphs for the shows with no logical structure?).

Is it worth trying to fix, or better to delete altogether? Donners (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

better than adding a whole new section, I added here. I worked really hard on rewriting TOS and TNG to be grammatically correct. I also added missing links to both as well as completing the Main 7 on TNG. One other thing I added was references to both on Majel Barret as the voice of the Computer. Not a major rewrite, just a one liner, but someone reverted the entire page (almost immediately, too) with the comment that the computer was a "minor charcter" and not worthy of note.

What gives?VulpineLady (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopses in articles on entire film series- Spoil or not to spoil?

It is true that it is official WP policy to include spoilers in plot summaries in articles on individual films. Nonetheless, Many WP articles on an entire film series do not contains spoilers when giving out brief plot synopses of the individual films. Examples of WP articles on film series which do not give out spoilers in their plot synopses include the WP articles on the series of Harry Potter films, the article on the series of Narnia books, the article on the series of James Bond films (this set of synopses written mostly by myself), and the article on the Pink Panther film series. On the other hand, movie spoilers do appear in the WP articles on the Star Wars series and that on the Alien film series, and that on the Nightmare on Elm Street series.

IMO, the first option is better for film synopses appearing in an article on a whole film (or book) series. Hence, my reversion of the most recent edit of this article which I felt gave away far too much, though it had a few judicious edits.

However, I am open to alternative opinions.

--WickerGuy (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek films on Blu-ray

Now this isn't concrete since this isn't from Paramount itself but there was is a rumor that the Star Trek films in 2009 will be on Blu-ray format. Just thought this should be brought to the attention of the editors. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• They probably will release them on Bluray since they'd make a substantial amount of money on something that is relatively cheap to produce. However, until it's more than just rumors, there's no need to include it. - Koweja (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. WP:CRYSTAL. --EEMIV (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would be keen to know as soon as there is any kind of confirmation. Suely if a major publication, Like say Empire magazing or a newspaper, wrote that they may do this then that would be legitimate to mention? --Amedeo Felix (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• "May" do this? Meh. Studios and whatnot rarely ever say they *won't* do something, and even Empire passing along speculation would really just be borderline speculation; I think to warrant inclusion, it would need to be rooted in some affirming announcement from the studio. --EEMIV (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of order, so to speak. You would sound less biased if you had written just "I think to warrant inclusion, it would need to be rooted in some affirming announcement from the studio." and left all the rest out. --Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I shall post this here in talk for now, even though it's pretty decent quality source: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Blu-ray--Amedeo Felix (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Lost- Doesn't show up on old versions either- More vandalism??

The image of the Star Trek logo vanished after my last edit which simply added an internal comment. However, it doesn't show up when you retrieve old versions either, so it's not related to my edit. The link to that image is broken and should be fixed. More vandalism??

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact ALL the star trek logos have disappeared

Star Trek logo is also missing from Voyager page. --WickerGuy (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're back --WickerGuy (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Famous continuty errors"

Copy-and-paste from the article. No citation for continuity errors being famous, nor that these are actual errors, nor that any of these are actually famous. Seems more like trivia and OR than anything useful. But here it is, if someone wants to cite and add. --EEMIV (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous continuity errors

The list of continuity problems found by close viewers of the series is endless, but there are a few especially famous ones.

Most notable is the difference in appearance between the fairly humanoid Klingons in the original series and their more alien appearance in subsequent appearances starting with the very first movie. This could not be written off as minor when an episode of the fourth series Deep Space Nine "Trials and Tribble-ations" had the crew traveling back to Kirk's era using footage from the original series. In that episode Worf, a now-standard Klingon, was in the same cafeteria as some old-style Klingons, and the conversation turns to the difference in their appearances. Worf says this is something that Klingons do not speak of among strangers. Not until the final series Enterprise do we learn that some Klingons had stolen material used in illegal genetic engineering experiments from human scientists and accidentally contaminated many Klingons with human DNA in efforts to breed a super-race.

Also frequently commented on is Khan's remark to Chekov in the second film "Ah, Chekov! I never forget a face." Chekov had not become a member of the cast in the 1st season of the original series in which the episode with Khan ("Space Seed") was broadcast. Actors at Star Trek conventions have repeatedly explained this by saying Chekov was a much lower-ranking officer at the time and Khan met him in the restroom.

It is the official position of Paramount Pictures that all Star Trek novels and comic books are non-canonical and are not considered to have taken place in the main Star Trek universe.

As the fellow who put this in in the first place, I can say stuff both pro and con. It would be easy to find citations for these. I didn't because they are so well-known among Trek fans.

However, the question remains as to whether they are trivia. I think not because although there are literally thousands of continuity glitches in Star Trek which have been noted over the years (there is even a published book called The Nitpicker's guide to Star Trek.), these two seem specifically to me to be the ones that surface again and again at meetings of Star Trek fans and/or get mentioned at science-fiction conventions, as well as the problems that get noticed by only marginal Trek fans. Generally, these are THE two continuity problems that are glaringly obvious problems to even casual viewers of the shows with only a general memory of the overall flow of the storyline. In the case of the second item, this is partially because the 2nd Trek film is overall the most popular and successful of the entire series, and so the Chekov problem is more noticable.

Small stuff like the changes in the technology of warp drive or the size of the Federation or the number of shuttle-craft aboard Voyager- these are noticed by only hard-core fans. But even very occasional viewers have noticed the Klingon forehead shift, and the Chekov problem with the 2nd film.

I'll try to trace some citations.

--WickerGuy (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now cited the Chekov thing up the wazoo. It's cited as the "best-known Trek gaffe" in a general published book on screen adaptations and is the only Trek gaffe mentioned in a general book on television culture. Hopefully, that establishes it's notability re WP:NOTABILITY.

The resolution of the Klingon issue was as recent as 2005, so isn't as widely mentioned in published books, but it's notability should be a bit more self-evident. It's a possible retcon established in the films, then established as definitely NOT a retcon in the series Deep Space Nine and then the anomaly is resolved in the series Enterprise. Four incarnations of Trek, three TV series and the films are all involved so it certainly satisfies WP:NOTABILITY regarding this article.

I kept both my fansite citations, but as you say the second one isn't necessarily reliable- I'm only willing to retain it because what it says re the notability of the Chekov thing is backed up by two reputable published books. However, my first cited fan-site's reputation is a bit more solid. "Ex Astris Scientia" is widely considered one of the best Star Trek info sources out there. Furthermore, I do not use it so much as to establish notability of the Klingon issue so much as to lead the reader to a much more detailed discussion of the whole history of the Klingon forehead issue. The notability is, as I say, established because it's a continuity issue spanning 40 years of Trek and 4 incarnations of Trek.

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the citation of the Chekov gaffe, the underlying idea that gaffes as a whole are "famous" is not substantiated. The Chekov thing would probably be more appropriate in the article on that character. Fan sites simply are not reliable sources, much as we might like Ex Astris, and "self-evidence" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion/assertion -- that's original research. Please review WP:RS, WP:N before trying to restore this material. --EEMIV (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you raising the bar higher and higher?

EEMIV, at first you said "No citation for continuity errors being famous, nor that these are actual errors, nor that any of these are actually famous". First of all, let me qualify my terminology. These aren't exactly errors but glitches that required resolution because a lot of people noticed them. My wording might have been imprecise but "errors" is common parlance even if a bit inaccurate. This could improve.

Frankly, while you seem very familiar with WP policy, and good grammar and editing practice, you don't seem to be very familiar with Star Trek. Perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps someone less familiar with a subject matter has a distinctive critical perspective on an article that needs to be heard, so that something can be more convincingly demonstrated. (For example, any book for laymen on quantum physics should be proofed by at least one person who does not know quantum physics.)

It's now unclear to me if you are challenging that these particular gaffes are famous, or that any gaffe is famous. If the latter, I don't get it. Just as certain political gaffes are unusually famous (such as Gerald Ford saying that Russia doesn't control Poland) some gaffes in story series are famous, such as the business of whether Watson's war wound is in his arm or his leg, arguably the single most famous gaffe in the original Sherlock Holmes series.

Generally, most of the continuity problems in Star Trek are left dangling. The fact that Paramount went to some trouble to address these (which is a rare occurrence) I think establishes that they satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. As such, I have added the following sentence to my first paragraph. "Those mentioned here are distinctive insofar as Paramount Studios went to some trouble to address them in response to widespread fan feedback."

In particular, The writers of Enterprise would not have gone to the trouble to create an elaborate two-episode plot line to resolve a continuity problem spanning decades had there not been considerable discussion of it throughout the fan community. In a similar vein, the fact that the novelization of the 2nd film tries to explain the Chekov problem is an indicator of fan awareness of it.

On Klingons, here's a citation I missed. The official Paramount pictures Star Trek site calls the Klingon business "probably the single most popular topic of conversation among Star Trek fans: Why do Klingons look different during Captain Kirk's day than all the times after and before?" "http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/8695.html" And they should know. They get all the Trek fan mail and scout most of the conventions!!

I've certainly established from third-party sources that the Chekov thing is "famous". (Hence, the exasperated tone of this posting, and my title for this section.) When a published book on general screen adaptations covering everything from spy movies to serious drama calls this "the apparent gaffe notorious throughout Star Trek fandom", that damn well establishes it as famous!! Both my book citations are books not about Trek but about film and television generally and the Chekov bizness is the single solitary Trek continuity issue they mention. If that doesn't establish fame, I honestly don't know what does!!!!

In good faith.

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Trek, thank you, as my long edit history, contributions, and lauds from other editors makes clear -- however, my (or your) familiarity with Trek is immaterial; when it comes to adding/restoring content, what's significant is our ability to provide appropriate citations to our claims. These errors you point out are trivial; at best, individual examples of continuity slips would be more appropriate in the articles related to those topics (Chekov, Klingons, etc.) -- but you've yet to provide a citation that these gaffes as a whole have received significant third-party coverage. And simply stating that there is an inconsistency in Klingons' appearance or Chekov's time on the Enterprise is just plot summary; unless there's been some academic, third-party review or response to them, it is, again, just trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if they have been - they would be better off covered at the individual articles not here at the top level. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to point out that and give reasons why among the hundreds of Trek continuity issues, these two are especially prominent and notable. Continuity issues concerning say Kirk's birthplace or Vulcan philosophy are NOT notable because they don't stand out among the many hundreds of issues. My choices were not random or arbitrary!! These really are the most frequently discussed continuity issues.

Perhaps the Chekov thing is out of date, very famous in the 1980s but no longer so. Both it and the Klingon appearance issue may be of interest primarily to hardcore Star Trek fans, and as such be superfluous to a article in a general encyclopedia on Star Trek. There is already a humongous massive mammoth Leviathan-proportioned discussion of the Klingon biz in the WP article on Klingons. I thought a shorter discussion would be worth doing here simply because it's an issue spanning 4 versions of Star Trek and 3 decades of real-time, and because it's the single most-discussed issue at Star Trek conventions as documented on Paramount's official site. Nonetheless, it's possible that beyond the realm of Trek conventions, perhaps no one cares.

For the time being, I concede.

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I substantially trimmed the original research and citations to fan sites WickerGuy restored to the article. The dregs of this addition persist in unsourced claims, and the removal of original research leaves it as just a skeleton that fails to identify or even suggest that Star Trek continuity is anything more than a point of trivial discussion. Please use the content there as the framework to expand it -- or remove it to user space -- User:WickerGuy/Star Trek continuity would be an apt sandbox -- as part of a long-term endeavor. The fact that I didn't remove the section entirely is not an endorsement of its presence; if Cameron Scott or another editor agrees with me that it really should be yanked, please do so. Really, I left those dregs in an attempt to avoid an round of tendentious exchange with WickerGuy. However, if the content in its present state isn't significantly improved in the next week or two to suggest an overall third-party interest/focus on the topic of Star Trek continuity, I'll once again remove this section. 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An immediate removal to a sandbox might have been better, because the final edit by EEMIV (now removed in entirety by Cameron Scott) was less encyclopedic at least in terms of content if not in the area of source citation. The entirely deleted first paragraph was there to establish the notability of the subject and contextualize the discussion. Without that opening paragraph (gone in toto in EEMIV's intial revision) it really does look like irrelevant, banal, and pointless trivia. A [citation needed] tag on the mention of the three books and a few other factoids and/or a sandbox removal would have been the way to go. But this material's presence in this high-level article depends on establishing very broad fan interest both in these specific continuity issues and continuity issues generally. Without that material in that EEMIV-removed first paragraph, this section really is a lame piece of fluff.

On some specific deletions-

Some of the deleted Klingon stuff on the real-world explanation was there to get out of an in-universe perspective into a real-world perspective, a policy WP strongly encourages. If it is really OR to say that the real reason for the change in Klingon makeup was that they had a lot more money to throw around, then in fact this too can be cited from Paramount's website and bios of Gene Roddenberry. A simple [citation needed] tag would have worked. I could have found one.

Given that the site www.ex-astris-scientia.org is cited in 23 other WP articles on Star Trek not just in multiple articles on individual episodes but in the WP articles on "Pon Farr" and "Saber Class Starship" I really don't see why it can't be cited here. There seems to be at least some WP editor consensus that it's a legitimate source.

Sorry for failing to provide the citation for the Paramount Pictures website. I had it in earlier versions. I just slipped there. EEMIV, you omitted the verb 'is' in the first sentence of the last paragraph of your revision.

Maybe I've lived with Star Trek so long (including 21 years of working in computer firms where virtually the whole payroll watched the show), I just don't have a clear perspective on stuff I think is just common knowledge and I think doesn't need citation.

--WickerGuy (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Article for deletion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classifications Ikip (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek documentaries section or article

There are at least six documentaries and an episode of Modern Marvels about Star Trek, but there is no mention of them that I have found as of yet. Should there be a brief section in this article or a short seperate article about these documentaries? This is just a random thought that I had, do with it as you will. LA (T) @ 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special at IMDb (1991)
• The Twenty-Five Year Mission Tour at IMDb (1992)
• From Here to Infinity: The Ultimate Voyage at IMDb (1994)
• Star Trek: 30 Years and Beyond at IMDb (1996)
• Mind Meld: Secrets Behind the Voyage of a Lifetime at IMDb (2001)
• How William Shatner Changed the World at IMDb (2005)
• Modern Marvels "Star Trek Tech" at IMDb (2007)

There's a more recent documentary about the auction of ST memorabilia at Christie's that aired in 2007 which does actually go a lot into the production of ST as a whole. A lot of these other documentaries are largely promotional in character and as such of limited notability (though not without notability altogether) IMO. The film documentary Trekkies about fandom which was out in theatres is very good and notable IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Model Replica locations

Added that Winnipeg, Manitoba has a replica of the Enterprise-A in the Cineplex Theatre at the St. Vital Mall in South Winnipeg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooled Down (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on CG vs. CGI

TO previous anonymous editor.

It is entirely true that recently computer-generated film graphics are starting to be referred to as CG for "Computer Graphics" instead of CGI ("Computer Generated Imagery") to avoid confusion with the other acronym "Common Gateway Interface". Nonetheless, from the early 1990s till at least last month CGI has been a dual-acronym that can mean either of these two things. (This is not a unique situation. If you live in Philadelphia, TLA can mean either "Theater of the Living Arts" or "Three-Letter Acronym", take your pick.)

Indeed, there has been a growing groundswell of software folks since around 2000 who say they would prefer the acronym CG to avoid the problems with dual meaning of CGI and they are definitely gaining ground (or momentum). However, the online magazine Computer Graphics World still uses the acronym CGI (in the imagery sense) in articles published just last month (January 2009) as does the magazine CGExplorer, and it is still standard throughout the professional film industry, so it is certainly acceptable here.

Mr. or Ms. 76.247.49.33: in writing as you did in your edit summary "To whatever uneducated simpleton wrote this, it is "CG" (computer graphics) not "CGI" which is for common gateway interface, & is a programming term. It does't mean "computer generated images"", you are simply revealing that you are probably about the same age as Wesley Crusher when he joined the crew of the Enterprise (and just as precocious). I hope you have a bright career at Starfleet Academy or whatever similar institution you later attend. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it Hallow or Hala-deck? [unsigned question]

Actually, its a holodeck because it has holograms on it. However, please keep in mind you won't find any telegrams at SuperWiki's teledeck nor Superwikia's teledeck nor at AOL's Teledeck site (apparently about a character with that name). I can take you downtown to a hot mammodeck with some exciting mammograms, but I strongly suspect you are not of legal age yet. --WickerGuy (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

I modified the current header to reflect the memory alpha page. why:

• With a new movie out, the new star trek film, with is titled "Star Trek", and nothing else is bound to be a heavily traveled page for the next few months with it being released early may. lots of new fans will want to see the new page, and the new movie's page is not easily accessible at the moment.
• The original series was also merely called Star Trek. not Star Trek: XXXXX.

Oldag07 (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NAMB. just64helpin (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Frequently discussed continuity problems

It's time for this section to go. For one thing, I don't see any evidence of anyone outside the nitpicky fan community "frequently discussing" any of these. The individual items -- Klingons' appearance and Chekov in SS/TWoK -- can be merged to Klingon and Pavel Chekov, respectively. However, they have no significant bearing on the franchise as a whole, and this chunky section gives undue weight to what ultimately boils down to trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, much of the content is cited directly to primary sources (hardly evidence of "frequent discussion"), and stylistically, with it's "endless" list and occasional first-person, simply isn't encyclopedic. I've migrated the Klingon piece there; will move the Chekov bit, and will look for a home for (what remains of) the intro. paragraph about publishing books of nitpicks. --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for this to go, but a few (farewell) notes are in order.

1) That whole extra bit added earlier today by User:OBloodyHell had nothing whatsoever to do with continuity issues and everything to do with issues of scientific accuracy, and as such had no place in this section whatsoever! In the Sherlock Holmes series, Holmes' alleged ability to distinguish the manufacturer of tobacco from its ashes (which cannot be done) is a scientific error. The issue of whether Watson's war-wound is in his arm or leg is a continuity error. They're different, so OBloodyHell's (quickly reverted) material had no place there.
2) I agree with most of EEMIV's first comment. Yes, outside the fan community, these are not really discussed, though I thought this would be an interesting glimpse into the fan community. But regarding the second comment, I don't see any use of first-person here at all, and the significance of the Chekov bit was all established from secondary sources, and indeed sources writing about film and TV generally rather than Star Trek specifically which makes the evidence of "frequent discussion" that much stronger. However, this may still not quite satisfy WP:Notability for the high-level article. The Klingon material I felt was notable simply because it is the only issue I can think of that spans four out of five Star Trek series. Generally, the official Star Trek website is indeed a "primary source", but as a gauge of fan response probably a reliable one. However, I can't think of any secondary sources on this probably because the resolution of the continuity is both fairly recent and in a relatively little-seen series (Star Trek:Enterprise).
In general I wanted to give a glimpse into the fan community, by discussing only two continuity problems at any extensive length, two which I'm reasonably convinced are the two most widely discussed ones.
3) As far as my personal vanity and ego go, I remain still the prime originator of three other sections of this article, so I suppose I still have some laurels here. Cheers --WickerGuy (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First person collective pronoun "we" in the final sentence of the Klingon paragraph. By primary sources, I was instead referring to citations to a specific episode. Anyhow, both the Klingon and Khan thing have garnered some third-party discussion, and can be further developed at their respective articles. I didn't have Klingon watchlisted and was pleasantly surprised to see that someone's given it a thorough cleaning; the Chekov article, however, could use some work. A few of us have been whacking at the Kirk, Spock and McCoy articles; it'll take a while to get down the ladder to Pavel. --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what this article needs here is a very short paragraph generally on Trek fandom similar to the WP article Trekkies though heavily condensed. (None of this is covered in the current version of the "Cultural impact" section here.) It might even have a single sentence on continuity issues.

I think that bit in the Klingon paragraph is what is known as the "rhetorical we". A 2003 article arguing this is used very excessively in modern journalism is at [2]. But I wouldn't have called it "first person" writing.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Series was canceled after 2nd season, then renewed by NBC for 3rd?

My recollection: Star Trek (The Original Series) was canceled by NBC due to poor ratings after season number 2. Then came a letter-writing campaign, by its devoted fans, unlike any that had occurred up to that time in popular culture. NBC at first stonewalled (a word that was not yet in current use) but then, as the letters kept pouring in, admitted that it might have been wrong in relying on the Nielsen ratings for evaluating the series' popularity. As a result, the network publicly changed its mind and said Star Trek could have one more chance to show decent ratings.

However, the Season 3 ratings were not much (if any) improved, and the ax fell (permanently, this time) by its end.

Yet (I have read) the result was that there were enough Star Trek episodes by that time (I believe 79, aside from the pilot) that it made economic sense to put the series in syndication. Syndicated shows' episodes were typically shown at least 5 times per week; absent enough episodes, the shows would cycle too often on local TV stations. Had the 3rd season not happened, the Star Trek phenomenon as we know it would never have been possible, owing to the series successfully being syndicated and developing an ever-growing cult following.

69.251.77.105 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The third season of Trek was broadcast in the dead zone of 10PM on Friday evenings, a move which so enraged Roddenberry that he resigned from the series, and was not in charge in the final third season. Most fans as well as the original cast believe there was a drastic falling off in quality in the 3rd season, with only a few really memorable episodes. However, The Outer Limits made it into syndication with only 50 episodes (which also had a weak final season without the original producer) so there might have been some hope for Trek even without the last season. Typically, television executives want 100 episodes for syndication, but will make occasional exceptions.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Other franchise properties

Because this is a page on the franchise as a whole, a brief mention of the franchise in other media would be good. a good example of what to do is: Star wars#Expanded Universe. The pages of significance would be: Star Trek games, List of Star Trek novels, Star Trek (comics), and Star Trek: The Experience. Oldag07 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cobbling the introductions of these pages the section could look like:

• This is a list of the various Star Trek novels, novelisations, short story collections that have been published since 1968. Through this time, three main companies have published Star Trek fiction: Bantam Books (from 1967 to 1981), Ballantine Books (from 1974 to 1978), and since 1979 Pocket Books.

• Almost continuously since 1967, a number of companies have published comic book series based on Star Trek and its spin off series, including Gold Key Comics, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Malibu Comics, Wildstorm, and currently IDW Publishing, with varying degrees of success. As of 2007, Star Trek: Enterprise remains the only Trek series that has yet to be adapted in comic book form.

• Star Trek has numerous games based off it, in many different formats, beginning in 1967 with a board game based on the original series and continuing through 2009 with online and DVD games.

Oldag07 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. Now we need some expansion of those sections.

Encyclopedic?

Anyone else think the "Fictional Characters who like Star Trek" section is unencyclopedic and should be deleted? --EEMIV (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting in minor characters from films is less defensible than major characters from long-running TV series, and it is generally more defensible when there is an significant impact on the plot of the story.

For a while, there were only three examples Frasier and Buffy and Stargate, shortly followed by a fourth Heroes. In these cases, the actual plot-content/storyline of multiple episodes was affected by the presence of a fictional Trekkie, which I would say constitutes influence.

Perhaps these four could be put into one paragraph with a greater emphasis on how plot-content is affected, and the rest get dropped. At least, that's my suggestion.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, but it still looks to me like a fanboyish collection of, "Hey, here are some folks in other TV shows who like the same stuff I do." It's pop culture trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. On the one hand, this isn't really true of the Buffy citation, since an actual plot-line of 3 Trek episodes is being imitated in one episode. On the other hand, I don't know if you can justify a section like this without multiple examples, and all the others do indeed have that fanboyish trivia quality. In two other cases, actors from Trek have appeared in Trek-tribute series. Not sure if that justifies inclusion. Let's see what other editors say.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was such an accomplishment BECAUSE it isn't your typical encyclopedia. I see no issue with having references to fictional characters who show a clear interest in Star Trek as it displays a clear cultural influence on the general population. In my opinion that is fully relevant to the topic of Star Trek. I was the user that entered the "Terminal" reference and in that particular movie the Star Trek reference actually plays a major role in a subplot in the movie. In fact, just the fact that she uses the Vulcan salute to show that she accepts his marriage proposal in it of itself shows a significant impact, not to mention that those who have never watched Star Trek likely wouldn't understand the meaning behind that in the first place. At this time I'm choosing not to re-enter my edit as I don't wish to cause trouble here. However, when I signed up for Wikipedia, it was my understanding that information should only be removed if it is clearly false or is an obvious attempt at vandalism, neither of which I feel my edit was. A shortening or rewording I could understand, but a full removal is something I find to be unacceptable. Gyfted1 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view consider it a provisional removal, until a proper shape can be figured out for the section that isn't just a list. (I removed it BTW). I didn't know what role this played in Terminal, and if anything was at fault at your end, it was that your entry didn't really clarify it. I'm taking the point of view that if fictive fandom affects the story-structure, the main plot proper, not merely a characterization, it can be fitted it here. There certainly is a WP standard that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and stuff has to satisfy WP:Notability, and give reasons for it. My suggestion is to re-enter it, but be much clearer about how the plot of Terminal is affected than you were previously.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This has all now been moved to Cultural influence of Star Trek, so if Gyfted1 wants to resubmit his/her material on "The Terminal", that would now be the place to do it.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gyfted1, again thank you for your contributions. we are following WP:SUMMARY. As a page defining the whole star trek franchise as a whole, we must write in such a way that gets the main points about star trek, and directs people who want more information on the topic to new pages. Oldag07 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Star trek films

Again, I hate to delete some hard work, but none of this is sourced. this is way too detailed to be on a page with is an overview of the franchise Star Trek. Oldag07 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To back my point: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#OR Oldag07 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The first three feature films introduced a widespread upgrade to the technology and starship designs in the Star Trek universe, making for a dramatic visual departure from The Original Series. Most notable was the Starship Enterprise having been "refitted" with a modernized exterior design, and extensive changes to the interiors sets. Many of the set elements created for the aborted "Phase II" television series were further enhanced and adapted for use in the first feature film. Several concepts, designs, sets and props were used in the remaining feature films, as well as the subsequent television spin off series'.

In terms of plot, each film mostly stands alone, though the second, third, and fourth films loosely form a trilogy, with the later plots building on elements of the earlier ones. The third film picks up within several days of the conclusion of the second, the fourth a few weeks after the third. The fifth film also seems to start shortly after the fourth, although the plot of the fifth is otherwise unrelated to the prior trilogy. The fourth film has much more light-hearted comic relief than others. The sixth film is intended as a send-off for the original crew, and both it and the seventh film acts as a bridge between the original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. The sixth film explained how peace was established between the Federation and the Klingons, and introduced a character who was the grandfather of Next Generation's Worf (both played by Michael Dorn). The seventh film spanned different time-eras and had characters from both the original series and Next Generation.

The first film is often criticized for being essentially a synthesis of the plots of the original episodes "The Changeling" and "The Doomsday Machine", and for its generally slow pace. Both the second and eighth film were sequels to specific episodes of a Star Trek television series. Although the tenth film is a Next Generation film, it does contain a cameo by Star Trek: Voyager star Kate Mulgrew (Captain Janeway). Initial plans were for the Voyager crew to feature in at least one theatrical release, but these plans were scuttled due to the poor box office receipts of Nemesis.

Some fans consider the even-numbered Star Trek films to be superior to the odd-numbered Star Trek films (the so-called "Star Trek movie curse"); the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth films are considered fan favorites, whereas the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth are often considered the weaker films.

This fan impression roughly corresponds to the critics' reviews of the films. According to Rotten Tomatoes website, the best of the Star Trek films are: The Wrath of Khan (92% fresh), First Contact (91% fresh), The Voyage Home (86% fresh), and The Undiscovered Country (84% fresh). The worst films are The Final Frontier (18% rotten) and Nemesis (36% rotten), which is the even-numbered 10th film. The Search for Spock received generally favourable reviews (77% fresh). Critics were almost evenly divided on the remaining 3 films (The Motion Picture, Generations, and Insurrection). The eleventh Star Trek film, due out in theatres on May 8, 2009, will be the first Star Trek film released in the summer since 1989's Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

I have conservatively added about two-thirds of this material to List of Star Trek films.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Franchise Future

We can't have the animated series, nor the tv series. see WP:SPECULATION Oldag07 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Films' critical reception

Coupla questions:

1. Why do we link out to Rotten Tomatoes? Is there a reason we're promoting one aggregator over another?
2. Does anyone else think having just raw percentage under the "Critical reception" column is a little vague?
3. i.e. Would we be better off just deleting that column?

Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are multiple aggregators, we should list more than one. What are the alternatives?--WickerGuy (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't you think that information would fit better on the List of Star Trek films page. Oldag07 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then would it appropriate to have the word "list" in the title? How about Star Trek (film series) as with the article Harry_Potter_(film_series)?--WickerGuy (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the Star Trek Universe

A section or mention of this in a related section is important. To simply take a blind eye to matters just because they are current and may change does not mean that a critical part of the franchise as a whole should not be mentioned. That is simply not encyclopedic. We can write about current changes and if needed, simply tag the section as a current event that may change.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the section with some copy edit to be more encyclopedic in tone and added references to begin. The section has potential to grow. I can add a great deal but wish to go slow on pages that already have well established editors with a great deal of work on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This section has a largely unencyclopedic tone, lacks context, and puts a disproportionate weight on a single movie. The fact that the movie takes place in, as has been pointed out several time (both here and in third-party sources, and from the producers themselves) an alternate, parallel reality makes even the idea of "changes" inapt; this is more like an addition. I'm going to migrate much of this to the blurb on the most recent movie. The second paragraph is just a list of plot trivia. Please, keep in WP:DEADLINE in mind; there should be no rush to add marginally referenced content just because a new movie came out. --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also something to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not a substitute for a newspaper. WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY. We are not supposed to be the first ones with the information; we are not even supposed to be in the top 50. We use these top fifty to serve as the basis for our citations. Moving in advance of that invites speculation, OR and a bunch of fanboi cruft. Stop trying to meet the deadline - there isn;t a hurry, and anyone doing so usually offers extremely sloppy results. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the information that was placed was referenced, and considering the broad scope of this article, I do not believe the section was misplaced. I also strongly disagree with the interpretation that it "puts a disproportionate weight on a single movie", when the direction a storyline takes is only based on the last production.

I do have to worry that the idea that the section could invite speculation, or/and a bunch of fanboi cruft is a legitimate worry. I am also not in a hurry. I stumbled on this article while editing a character page that was written as a biography and needed to be more encyclopedic.

I will not add the section back at this time. Consensus seems clear to me, even if I disagree strongly with the first criticism. EEMIV may not completely understand what the section was about, but to be honest it may well be my fault for writing the prose, and titling the section in a manner that came across too "Immediate". The changes mentioned are more than just trivia, but there is no need to establish these changes on this article at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Inter-series home video anthologies

Wickerguy and I spent quite some time trying find a proper compromise to create this section. While it seems as if consensus seems to be on deleting this section, I feel that the section should be preserved on the the talk page, A, for me just to save the hard work wickerguy took to make the section, and B just in case people change their minds about the section.

In the late 1990s, there was a series of boxed VHS videotape sets presenting selected episodes following a particular theme or story arc. Beginning in 2003, similar but much larger compilations of thematically-related episodes from multiple Star Trek series were released on DVD, initially only in Region 2. For example, the DVD set Star Trek: Klingon contains Klingon-themed episodes from all five of the non-animated series in a "Fan Collective" set, including multiple episodes tracing the story-arc of Worf's lost family honor on the Klingon home world. Similar DVD sets include Borg, Q, Time Travel. Still available only in Region 2 is a DVD set of all 2-hour Next Generation episodes.

Paramount has announced it will release "Best of" DVD for both The Original Series and The Next Generation.

Oldag07 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Future TV Series

Removed future TV series speculation due to WP:FUTURE

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place":

If more stuff comes up on this tv series, I would love to put it back. but right now, it is far from certain. There is plenty of reason why Paramount would not want to release a new TV series quite yet.

Original Text

By capping on the success of the film, Bryan Fuller, the creator of Pushing Daisies, hopes to create a new TV series based on the original Star Trek. In an interview with iF Magazine, he said, "I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams' team I want to create another Star Trek series and have an idea that I'm kicking around. I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colours and attitude. I loved Voyager and Deep Space Nine, but they seem to have lost the '60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin."

Oldag07 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear God, I imagine that Joel Schumacher said precisely the same thing when prepping the Batman films for which is he universally reviled. To this day, Schumacher carries around cash to reimburse folk for having spent money on them. Why some people are oblivious to what Star Trek is beyond me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Original introduction

This site: [Star Trek introduction] has the original introduction of this TV serie.Agre22 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

DVD release

I hate deleting all this, but this is way too detailed for a page with is supposed to be an overview of the Star Trek series. Moreover none of it is sourced. i totally agree, this stuff is nothing but too-long-crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.81.166 (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To back my point: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#OR Oldag07 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The history of the release of Star Trek on DVD does not follow the overall history of Star Trek. Most of the films were released on DVD prior to any of the television series, starting with First Contact. Following that ST:TOS came out in a series of separate discs with two episodes per disc.

In 2001 there was an enormously successful release of a re-edited director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture along with remastered CGI special effects, all supervised by the film's director Robert Wise. Its success motivated Paramount to release special editions of all the other films in two disc sets, loaded between two to three hours of special features.

Subsequently, boxed sets of complete seasons of Star Trek, with the first to be released in this format being ST:TNG in 2002 followed by ST:DS9 in 2003 and Voyager the last of which coincided with a season boxed set of ST:TOS in 2004. Extended special features were included for the first time on the subsequent release of Enterprise in 2005. Features included were bloopers and extended or deleted scenes. The last series to be released on DVD was The Animated Series in 2006.

In the late 1990s, there was a series of boxed videotape sets presenting episodes following a particular theme or story arc. In 2003, similar but much larger compilations of thematically-related episodes from multiple Star Trek series were released on DVD, initially only in Region 2. For example, the DVD set Star Trek: Klingon contains Klingon-themed episodes from all five of the non-animated series in a "Fan Collective" set, episodes chosen by fans. A DVD collection of all two-part episodes of ST:TNG has only been released in Region 2 called "Star Trek: The Next Generation- The Complete TV Movies." This set is unique to that region, editing all the two-part episodes into television movies (with the exception of the pilot episode "Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things..." which were already in that format). The only episode from that set that has appeared in Region 1 is the sixth season two-parter "Chain of Command," which was included in the 2007 "Captain's Log" Fan Collective DVD set.

Interest has been generated with the project to remaster ST:TOS, with slightly modernized CGI special effects which attempt to retain the basic look-and-feel of the original series' effects but with a smoother look to them. These new versions have been broadcast in some television markets and all three seasons are out on DVD. The remastered episodes of the series will be released on Blu Ray disc, along with the first six films featuring the original cast, in 2009. In addition, Paramount will also be releasing a "Best of" DVD for both The Original Series and The Next Generation. This has apparently been done for newcomers to the franchise, who might enjoy Star Trek following the release of the 2009 feature film.

All of Star Trek before 2001 was released on VHS videotape, though late seasons of Voyager were issued by a different distributor overseas when VHS interest lagged in the United States. However, the last three out of four seasons of Enterprise were never on videotape at all.

Oldag07 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't necessary feel comfortable having the DVD releases section on the Star Trek franchise page. I am looking more at the GA Star Wars as a guide for this page. there just isn't anything distinctive about Star Trek DVD's over any other television series. I think many of these paragraphs in their modified forms can find their ways into the individual series pages. Oldag07 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. The one and only exception to what you say is the thematic DVD sets such as "Klingon", "Borg", "Time Travel", etc. each DVD set having episodes on a common theme from all 5 series. It won't go elsewhere (Wellll, you could mention the "Klingon" DVD set in the "Klingon" article, but I was more interested in calling attention to the fact that thematic inter-series DVD sets like this exist generically.) On the other hand, I can't see putting that here either without a broader (though brief) discussion of the other DVD releases. (You were right that the old version had way too much information.) Maybe thematic DVD sets aren't notable enough to put in. I'm a bit weak on acronyms, but I'm guessing GA stands for "Good Article." --WickerGuy (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Long response on DVD releases

First off Wickerguy, I completely understand what it feels like to put a lot of effort into something, only to have it wiped by people who say what I did was not "notable". I am just looking at other pages for precedence on how DVD's are addressed. I started out looking at memory alpha for guidance.

• [Star Trek on Memory Alpha]- a very short article. but does have a link to a [separate page for DVD's].

Than i poked around at various TV series.

• Lost (TV series)- is a featured article. It mentions the topic in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost (TV series) its review. I could argue that this is a franchise far smaller than the star trek, and the page is about one tv series, not 5.
• Babylon 5- Does have a DVD section on page. But the page is huge, and the Babylon 5 franchise is not nearly as big as Star Trek's. There seems to be significant efforts to get the page to good/featured article quality, but it has not passed.

But Star Trek as a franchise is far bigger than these TV series. Here are a few franchises that might be more relevant.

• Battlestar Galactica- DVD's are mentioned in the page but not as a separate section.
• Star Wars- ranked a "good article" (correct), DVD's are mentioned on the page, but not as separate section
• Stargate, another movie/ TV show franchise page. Mentions the direct to DVD movies, but nothing about DVD releases.
• CSI (franchise)- Little is mentioned on the DVD's.
• Firefly (franchise)- no section for DVD's. (one must also note that they too have this page Firefly (TV series)
• Ghostbusters (franchise)- no individualized sections for DVD's.

After reading the various TV series, I am open to listening to more opinions about the DVD releases before deleting the section outright. I will however, retitling the section to home video releases, because there is mention of VHS's in the section, and the series has existed way before the DVD even was even invented.

Ultimately, I feel that this page is a franchise page. And as such, a "home videos" section would not make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise on that Wickerguy. Good stuff. Oldag07 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved your section to the television series section now that it mostly pertains to the TV series, not the rest of the franchise. I am not much of a book reader, but i think we can expand the new Books and Comics sections. Oldag07 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A good move (literally and figuratively)--WickerGuy (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Phase II

I´ve been thinking about Star Trek: Phase II in the TV-Series section. Since the Show never went into production (although pre-production was almost finished, granted), I think it would fit more appropriately into a new section. Something like "canceled projects".87.174.253.235 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Phase II was to launch the Paramount Network, but that was put off for a few decades and production became the beginnings of the film franchise. It does not warrant an entire section, but could begin a section as you described. Are there many canceled Star Trek projects? That was something I was unaware of.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe there are quite a few cancelled Star trek Projects, considering how big the Franchise is. But getting a reference or even information on that, may prove to be difficult. I know of a bunch of cancelled FIlm Projects (Star Trek VI was originally going to be a prequel (see the DVD Commentary in one of the newly insetred scenes, where the Federation President is talking to some Chiefs of staffs, one of them portrayed by René Auberjonois), because of the lack of success of Star trek V. Plans on a Prequel-film seem go back as far as the seventies, even before Phase II, but again I don´t know a clear reference). 87.174.242.6 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "other star trek projects" is that the studios won't release any information on them thinking they may still use the ideas somewhere down the line. I think this would be a bad title for a new section.Akuvar (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

split off TV series section

I suggest that the TV series section be summarized like the film series section, and the TV series section be made into a separate article List of Star Trek television series 76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It really, really shouldn't. This article is about the franchsie that is Star Trek, not just the different series. If you look, you will note that each of the products already have their own articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While this an article is about the franchise, the new article would be about the series. So i see no problem with a new page. I do admit, that an extra page would be a bit redundant. The positives of a list of TV series is that it would allow us to shorten or even remove phase 2, a series never made, hence something I don't feel should be with the shows that were produced. Moreover, if put in table form like the list of Star Trek movies, we it would make it easy to compare the different number of seasons the show has run, etc. Oldag07 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Phase II issue. The series was unproduced and shouldn´t be listed among the others. At least not in the way, it is now. As for the rest, it´ll depend on what the TV-Series section would look like after being shortened. I think, it´s short enough and the TV-Series are somewhat of the Core of the Franchise. The one thing (or six things^^), that everything else build upon. Considering this, I think it is appropriate (or at least not inappropriate) if they have an extensive section in the franchise article.87.174.242.6 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Stanley Kubrick article there is one section of actual Kubrick movies and a separate section of abandoned Kubrick projects (two of which were completed by others). Perhaps here we should do the same--WickerGuy (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just wandering through the article and saw this discussion topic. I think the brief sections on the various TV series are very useful. I could find the section and get the information I wanted without having to go to another article. Up until now at least, the TV series have been very important to the franchise and I think a summary of their nature and relationships is essential to the article. Judys (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

imho, enacting this proposal would substantially degrade the quality of this article. Dlabtot (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise section

I gutted most of this paragraph. This section has nothing to do specifically with enterprise. Since the series was never made, the importance of the paragraph is questionable on a page merely about the franchise of star trek. I left two sentences of this and merged it into the first paragraph.

As the show's viewer ratings dwindled, J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel proposed rebooting the franchise with the crew of the original series. They proposed a two-hour pilot where Kirk and Bones meet Spock and start the five year mission. Each season would chronicle a year on the Enterprise, as the crew embark on finding the common ancestor of every intelligent lifeform, with some stand-alone episodes in addition to "four or five episodes" building to a season finale. To further differentiate the show from past incarnations, they wanted to delete the holodeck, completely reinvent the technology, make the tribbles vicious, or even make Scotty a woman (though they made clear that example was a joke). They also suggested hiring famous novelists (Michael Crichton and Stephen King were some of their suggestions) to write episodes just as the original show made use of the likes of Richard Matheson. Straczynski explained Paramount ignored the proposal as they were not "even willing to talk about Star Trek".

Oldag07 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably belongs in an "Unfinished Projects" section along with "Phase II" and the never-realized series of which the TOS episode "Assignment: Earth" was meant to be a pilot.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But there have been so many star trek rumors and reports out there in the last 40 years, it would just clutter the page up. Anyone coming to this page seeking info about the franchise itself would get bogged down in a list of "what could have been, what may be" items and ultimately lend to confusion.Akuvar (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

History Section

I cobbled together a draft of a possible Star Trek History section. User:Oldag07/Sandbox. Any comments or suggestions would be highly appreciated.

I feel this section would allow us to remove phase 2 and franchise future. Oldag07 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

After some really fine edits from an anonymous editor, I plan to add this history section to the page sometime this weekend. Since the original text was copy and pasted off various pages, the only thing I feel I need to do is to fix the references. Again, it would be nice to have some more eyes on (DRAFT HAS BEEN POSTED) before it goes public.Oldag07 (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I visited this draft and I think it looks good. At least, it will make a great start for others to add more detail about the franchise history. I performed some edits to clean up typos.Akuvar (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

it is up. .. sorry. Oldag07 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a good 75 percent of your revisions. The other 25 percent were caught in the 2-3 days it has been posted. Thanks for the help Akuvar. Oldag07 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have nominated this page to be peer reviewed. I think this page is good enough for a GA or FA run in a few weeks. If you are new or light contributor, please give us your opinion. Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek/archive3 Oldag07 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The "TUC" part of the franchise timeline does not link to the "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" article.

The rest of the abbreviations lead to their respective articles, while TUC does not. Is there a way to edit this? Doyee Byun (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, there was a typo in the template. The page is linked now.
BAPACop (converse) 01:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it Oldag07 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Writers

it would be good if it were mentioned someplace that Star trek was the only Tv show that actually read, and sometimes used, scripts that were sent in by fans. When they used the fan scripts they gave screen credit and paid the fan. Herogamer (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek pioneered this but recently some reality shows have done the same.Also this practice was more prevalent on NextGen then the original series.
Actually, I think it would be worth mentioning that the original series had many scripts by folks previously most prominent in print media like Theodore Sturgeon and others.

--WickerGuy (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have references for this? I have references that state very clearly that almost all the Original Series scripts were comissioned, and the rest were submitted from reputable writers through an agent.

Information about writes on TOS probably belong at the TOS article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting and Conception

When I came to this article this section had problems. It had two very interesting paragraphs about Gene Roddenberry's conception of the original series, the messages he hoped to carry and its "wagon train to the stars" origins. All useful stuff.

Sandwiched in the middle of this is a lot of highly-detailed in-universe description of exactly how and when the human race achieved warp flight, all of which wasn't established until twenty years after the franchise, and the details of which are of interest only to the dedicated fan. I suggest that, while the fictional history of human warp capability has its place, it isn't in an overview article such as this one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Star Trek universe, humans developed faster-than-light space travel ("warp drive") following a nuclear war and a post-apocalyptic period in the mid-21st century. According to this universe's timeline, the first warp flight occurred on 5 April 2063. This technological feat attracted the attention of the Vulcans, an advanced alien race, who then made first contact with Earth. Aided by the scientific and philosophical teachings of the Vulcans, humans largely overcame many Earth-bound frailties and vices by the middle of the 22nd century, creating a quasi-utopian society in which exploration and knowledge replaced material wealth as the human civilization's central pursuit. Humans then united with other sentient species of the galaxy, including the Vulcans, to form the United Federation of Planets.

Removed it. placed paragraph on talk page if anyone objects, and wants to put it back. it should be sourced though. Oldag07 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Impact on Star Ocean

The item was removed and I re-added it. It is worthy of noting it because the series is a best-selling flagship series that had the creator asked directly in more than one interview about its influence and almost every review of the game mentions the Star Trek feel of the game. As said, this isn't some minor game company, Enix and (now Square-Enix) are the biggest RPG makers in the world. Furthermore, an impact section that does not report impact on other franchises when it can be verified violates WP:NPOV as it is stating that non-direct impact is unwrothy of mention, nor does what I added give undue weight as it's limited to 1 paragraph in a rather large article.陣内_Jinnai 03:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It definitely belongs on the Cultural influence of Star Trek. Not exactly sure where to put it on that page. as for this page, it probably should be added in a sentence in a paragraph of stuff that Star trek has influenced. This is a huge franchise, which has been around for a long time. Why Star Ocean and not Star Wars?. . .Oldag07 (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, as it does not belong in the main article. There are countless numbers of creative works that have been influenced by Star Trek, and no reason to suggest that Star Ocean is significantly notable to warrant a stand-alone mention in the main article on Star Trek. As suggested above, the "cultural influence" article is far more appropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike most other titles, the corralations between Star Ocean and Star Trek can be seen on a one-to-one level such as the Guardian of Forever and "Planet Styx", Prime Directive and "Underdeveloped Planet Preservation Pact", hand phasers and "phase gun", "Pangalatic Federation" which is similar in model to the "Federation", etc. Star Wars has notable impact from Star Trek, but it's harder to pinpoint clear examples that you can point to and say "this has a Star Trek counterpart". At the same time, Star Wars and others should be noted somewehre along with Star Ocean in the main article. I do agree more detail should be left to the child article.陣内_Jinnai 04:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Rick Berman Star Trek Details Into History of Star Trek

There has been a lot of problems on the Rick Berman page. To solve them, and add relevant information about the evolution of Star Trek, I feel the information should be edited and moved here, where it is more on-topic. The Berman page is 90% Star Trek, 10% Berman. The sub-section there goes into tremendous detail about Star Trek, that while is informative, is not neccessarily on-topic to the Berman page itself; it makes the page appear to be only about Rick Berman's involvement with Star Trek, rather than an authorative source of biographical information. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the information from the Rick Berman page could be added into the production history page. But I don't like thDJ Clayworth (e idea of a total merge. Berman was the executive producer for Star Trek. That is what he is notable for. Hence, it is appropriate for the bulk of that page to be about Star Trek.

Moreover, this page is very broad when it comes to Star Trek history. I think that the third paragraph on the Star Trek section of RB's page could become a criticism section. It should not be on this page. There are many plausible hypothesis for why Star Trek declined. An aging fan base. A canon that was so large that creativity was stunted. The rise of anti-intellectualism and cynicism. And then RB and Brandon Braga's incompetence. To promote one view over another would seem to be a violation of WP:NPOV.

Ihe only information from the RB page that I think should be added from the RB page is: In 2005, Berman was involved in developing an eleventh Star Trek movie based on a script written by Erik Jendresen; however, when Gail Berman (no relation) took over as president of Paramount Pictures, Jendresen's script was shelved. But am not a huge fan of this idea either. Oldag07 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say "merge" it means "put the information from the two sources into one, and delete the other". Clearly that is not appropriate here. Rick Berman obviously deserves a section on Star Trek, and this article deserves some discussion of the Berman years. Neither should be removed, and so the 'merge' notice is irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive misinterpretations. The merge tags were suggestions and notices to alert other editors that parts of the, overly detailed, history of Star Trek on the Berman page could be put where they belong. I could have been justified in trimming it, but I saw it had some work put into it. I thought giving editors a chance to associate what information they would like into the history section would be appropriate. And, I have to disagree, Oldag07, what he is notable for does not mean that constitutes what his biography should be all about. There are many biographies on Wikipedia where a person is a lot "less famous" than Berman and has a rich and detailed biography that broadly describes them. There are fictional characters on Wikipedia that have more biographical information. When I first came to that page, in an attempt to assist it, there was clearly bad faith involved on some of the contributors parts. The neutrality was disputed and a small conflict ensued to get things weeded out. This is my ongoing mission, if you will, as part of my regular checks on articles, to help improve them. Once an individual is notable, they get to have their biography put up. If someone goes ahead and makes that page, it needs to have information about him.

• The Star Trek section needs to have a "Main Article" template, which links into the history section of this page's Star Trek production history.
• This page's history section needs to receive the historical facts regarding the production history of Berman.
• Those historical facts need to be summarized on his page, and detailed on this page.
• The overly detailed portions on his page need to be deleted, following that.
• They will be deleted regardless, if they are not "merged, moved, copied, duplicated, or walked" over to this page.

Due to the difficulty in finding notable information regardling Berman's history, that page has been nothing more than a Star Trek page, also about Rick Berman, and not a biography of a living person. I plan to begin more work on that page soon, and part of it is cutting the unnecessary out, and helping find information that goes in. He also was an assistant producer for Cheers, and some other very notable TV shows in history. It lacks information on the awards that were given to episodes in which he produced for TNG, and a lot of other missing information. I came here as a courtesy, to help improve both articles. The tags merely indicated that they might have information to trade. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 02:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not just go removing tags until we have come to a consensus on the issue. I have assumed good faith one everyone's part, but please allow me to respond, and other editors to respond. Let it run its course. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation or not, adopting an antagonistic tone (with superfluous expressions like "Impressive misinterpretations") doesn't help. Yes, thank you for the heads-up that some potentially useful information at the Berman article might soon be deleted. If some of the detail you think deserves removal from the biography doesn't find a home before you whack at it, then it's safe and tidy in the edit history for some time down the line. You three are all trying to do right by articles you both keep an eye on -- perhaps he did misinterpret you, but that's no reason to jump down anyone's throat. (The tag removal, on the other hand, is an entirely appropriate criticism.) --EEMIV (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't make a problem where there isn't one. I am willing to let this go. When editors blanks tags and close a discussion before it begins, it becomes very difficult to assume good faith. I had considered issuing warnings, as these users have a long editor history and should know better. My aggravation is absolutely justified from the the blatant disregard for a good faith effort to bring an issue to the attention of the concerned parties. There is no doubt it was a misinterpretation; because, despite what is listed here, there were other actions[3][4] that occurred off this page in relation to why I responded. Its not a good way to begin a discussion by carte blanch removal of tags and then saying the discussion is closed. I do not appreciate your lecture when my good faith notice was blanked by two editors and then the discussion listed as "closed" on the edit summary within less than a day of putting it up. You should look at the totality of what happened before you lecture someone that goes out of their way to make good faith edits. I would have rather seen what your opinion was on the subject of getting the information over here, not your judgements. And I was commenting on the statements (WP:CIVIL), not the editors, which you have now just done. It is not appreciated. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the tag removing you're alluding to, and I said above I agree that it was inappropriate. However, your response to Oldag07 and DJ Claywort comes across as unnecessarily antagonistic -- even if aggrieved, you need not rile up tensions. Your response to me comes across as similarly pissed off. If you're really this frustrated, you might be better off just letting this talk-page sit for a bit, and instead make your point by continuing the work you're doing at Rick Berman. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking frustration for me telling you to stop judging, attacking, and ridiculing me. I can't be more clear to you. Please stop. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing none of those three; I'm sorry my comments have led to that ... misinterpretation. Seems everyone is capable of them, no matter either party's best intentions. --EEMIV (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At any rate. Let us move past that disruption and proceed as if it did not happen. I will disregard the untagging and dismissal of this discussion. How can we work together to get this closed? I did not want to be the one to move the statements because I felt that it would have been immediately reverted. I would rather give those that have more interest in those statements than I the opportunity to move them, so that it is more fair and there is less chance of disruptions. There is good information there that is missing from this page, and is too tangent for that biography. We can improve both articles by moving it where it belongs. One editor above agreed that some information could be moved. I support that and feel it should be done. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The production history target you indicated in the merge tags is likely the best place. However, that content is incredibly myopic (focusing squarely on Berman/reactions to him) and plopping it in here without the other avenues of criticism/explanations of decline would offer undue weight that perspective. Soooooooo . . . I'd suggest revamping Rick Berman as best you can. This conversation is a sufficient flag that there's worthwhile content in the article's early October 2009 edit history; either someone willing to vacuum up other information will squish it all together and put it in Star Trek . . . or, it can sit for a while. But I can't fathom a reason this article's inertia/holes should hold up the work you'd like to do at that biography. --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why the content should be edited as it is moved. That history pertains to the history of Star Trek. That is indisputable. This page is almost devoid of Berman, which I find to be very interesting, indeed. There are three sentences in which Berman is mentioned here, despite having worked on the franchise for more than a decade. And if I am getting this much resistance from the editors watching this page, what makes you think information would be able to be added here at all? I am starting to detect the first signs of WP:OWN. Lets not go down this road. EEMIV, we have not even begun discussing which parts of that large section could be included, and you are already saying that it will be WP:UNDUE? Of course the items will be edited so that they fit with the topic of the Star Trek article. I am very familiar with policy, so I have to disagree that including a major historical fact section regarding one of the major producers involved in the franchise would cause WP:UNDUE. In fact, I could rightly argue that the article's history section is not impartial.--☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 04:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that none of the many people who've watchlisted this article have jumped up to say, "Oh, me! I'll merge it!" It's not WP:OWN; it's WP:SLOTH. And beyond a merge of the Berman stuff, there's a slew of other material (at least insofar as the criticisms of Berman's contributions are concerned) that soooomeone would need to dig up to offer appropriate balance to the many Berman criticisms.

Then again, if it turns out the only stuff worth merging is, "Berman was criticized for ruining Star Trek, but a bunch of folks said it wasn't his fault" and there are appropriate cites, then great; very little lifting. And certainly right away, the simple factual assertions about his hiring, promotion, and awards can come in right away. I'm sure someone will get to that any moment now. The lack of Berman coverage is decidedly un-interesting, merely a sign that this article has distinct weaknesses.

Anyway, all the time the four of us have spent writing in this talk space could've otherwise been spent merging the content, and finding and sourcing other related material. I don't care enough about this article to do much with it except revert vandalism; maybe someone else will jump in. But, no, it's not an ownership issue; it looks like a, "Great idea, but don't wait up" idea. --EEMIV (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess it will have to be me. But we can at least leave these tags here for a little while, to see if someone else might come along. Meanwhile, I am going to enjoy my Wiki tea. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 04:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lightbound- Sorry for removing the tag on the RB page. I thought since it was removed on this page, that it should have been removed from the RB page. I was wrong.

I am still siding with the move as little as possible camp. This section only has three sentences on Roddenberry. As such, we aren't giving much weight to any of the major producers on this page which is supposed to be a "broad overview" of Star Trek. I personally think adding more than a sentence or two from RB would give undue weight about him on this page. However, as suggested in the next two sections, we are thinking about creating a History of the Star Trek Franchise page. Maybe that would be a good compromise place to put RB information. Keep up the good work Lightbound. Oldag07 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable, and I agree. I am surprised there is no such page yet. I will probably just sandbox the RB article and attempt to do it according to BLP Wikiproject style. I will remove the tags within 24 hours, just in case any others want to comment. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lightbound:See Wikipedia:Merging for what it means to merge two pages or sections. What you are proposing is not a merge. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is by the very definition of those pages. Cut and paste information that is not redundant to the Star Trek page history section and put it there. Not all information goes. Part or all of a source may be merged. In the case of a section, it may be blanked, but it may not. Those essays and guides do not explicitly state the case of how to handle sections where information might want to be re-factored and/or kept. The spirit behind the merging process was definitely upheld, which is clear from the tags created for articles and sections, and the process itself, that it is meant to reduce redundant information and keep relevant information where it belongs where it can be easily maintained. The fact is, that Berman page goes into great detail, even if it pertains to Berman, it also pertains to Star Trek too. There is no other tag to indicate such a request. I think its a narrow analysis of the template to suggest that the source must be deleted in every case. All of Wikipedia are guidelines, not meant to be used as draconian and inflexible views that are not open to use. The spirit of those tags was definitely inline with their purpose and they helped bring attention to both articles. They served their purpose as intended. We might want to work together to update that merger section on Wikipedia to include just such scenarios. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lightbound, your sandbox can hold the things that pertain to the RB page, I will start laying out the groundwork for a history page here. Oldag07 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Failed reboot

Removed:

Abrams was not the first team to propose a reboot. An attempt was also made by J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel to reboot the franchise with the crew of the original series, but Paramount ignored the proposal as they were not "even willing to talk about Star Trek".

There have been many attempts to reboot the franchise, but I see little reason to believe that this one is any notable over any of the others. The only exception to this would would be Star Trek: Phase II is notable because it did spawn the first movie, and Roddenberry was behind it. Oldag07 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it. I'm not aware of any other serious attempts to reboot the franchise by going back to the original characters (and you've provided no proof), and the information is definitely well sourced - and definitely notable due to the involvement of Straczynski & Zabel. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Phase II also wasn't a reboot, but a sequel, so I'm not sure why it would be relevant in discussing failed reboots. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the previous discussion was ample evidence of other reboot attempts. Admittedly this isn't the most authoritative source, I think it works for this argument. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Undeveloped_Star_Trek_projects J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel's reboot version isn't even mentioned. Oldag07 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That source doesn't highlight this revival attempt either http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_Final_Frontier Oldag07 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this again. While it would be appropriate information in the article about the movie, it's too detailed for this overview. We should concentrate on what actually happened, not on attempts that didn't happen. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at the point where we could possibly spin off a Production history of Star Trek, or a History of Star Trek Franchise page? I certainly wouldn't mind having this information on a spin off page. Oldag07 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that information on a different page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

History section spin off

As I have suggested in the last two sections of the talk page, I believe we have reached a critical mass with our production history page, that we should spin it off into a new page. Either History of Star Trek, or History of the Star Trek Franchise, or Production history of Star Trek. This page, Star Trek is supposed to be a broad overview of the whole franchise, and many of the minor details simply do not belong on this page. However, a history page spin off could incorporate these details, while allowing this page to remain a broad overview. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Started laying out the groundwork for a Star Trek history page here. Oldag07 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is enough material for it, I support the split on the grounds that this article is a broad overview of the subject of Star Trek; however, is there enough material for a full history of Star Trek page? I also feel that it should be titled the "History of Stark Trek," which would allow a broad inclusion of the history behind the shows, not just production details, information that might not be appropriate in a broad overview of the impacts and status of the show itself. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As the person who created the production history of Star Trek section (just copying and pasting a sections of multiple pages and trimming extensively), I can definitely say that stuff can be added to this page. WP:SIZE As of now, the page is 11,266 bytes. The current version does not have pictures. It has only a few sentences about voyager and deep space nine. It doesn't mention the name of featured films 3,4,5,6,8,9. Moreover, the page has nothing about conventions or the books. I put a to do list on that page. Once we knock out most of them, I will move the page.Oldag07 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC) MODIFIED Oldag07 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted about a 3rd of what i think is necessary for a history page. It still needs a lot of work before the page is done. Oldag07 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

History / Production History

At several points in the production history parts of the article there are references to some series being "syndicated" while others went to "network" TV. No links to other articles are provided. It is not at all clear from the way the article is written what this distinction means, or what it's actual influences on the development of the series were. There is clear implication that this change in practice (something related to advertising revenues?) did have an effect on the profitability of the series, and therefore on it's continuation. This may be a distinction that is hammered into American children at birth, but in other countries where the franchise is broadcast it is currently obscure. Aidan Karley (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek films Rotten Tomatoes

I hate to remove the hard work of Drukenpeter99. The Rotten Tomatoes idea is an idea that has floated around a few times. however, if it does not belong on the Star Trek (film series) page because of WP:UNDUE, (see here) it probably doesn't belong on this page which is supposed to be a broad outline of the whole franchise. I could definitely see the potential of adding a critical reception table. The Star Wars page is an excellent example of this: see Star Wars#Critical reaction. The numbers shouldn't be too difficult to find on Metacritic. That being said, we should define what type of information goes in the Star Trek films section, and what type goes in the Star Trek (film series) page, and then place these into comments so future editors will know what type of information goes into which section. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oldag07, that's too much detail for this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you fellas feel about it, I guess I'll just remove them myself. I already know which of the Star Trek films are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Drunkenpeter99 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be on this page, but I definitely see an expanded critical reaction page could definitely have a place on the Star Trek (film series) page. We can use this page Star Wars#Critical reaction as a model. I think I will use Drunkenpeter99's work as the basis of it. Of course, I do have to finish the History of Star Trek page first. I am just so busy at the moment. Oldag07 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just think it's important to display a table describing which are the good Trek films and which are the bad ones. Drunkenpeter99 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As we said above, no problem in theory, but Star Trek (film series) would be a much better place for that information than here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Film Template

Simonpettersen did a really good job of creating a possible future Star Trek Film template. Because this page is supposed to be a broad outline of the whole series, i so need for a extra template just for the films on this page.

Oldag07 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Star trek 2007

Why is this movie not included on star-trek wikipedia? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0835378/

I know little or nothing about it, so thats why i'm not gonna write anything. Maybe someone else does? Jaapvstr (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it went straight to video. It's not normally included in the list of "Star Trek" movies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also a fan made production. It was not made by the studio, is not officially part of the Star Trek franchise, or anything. It is just a very well made fan production. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Paramount allows fan productions as long as they are not made for profit. Actors from the original series have appeared in some of these. THis Might merit a brief mention in article AS a fan production since Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols both appear in the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

However I would suggest it belong in one of the more specific articles, not this one which is about the franchise as a whole. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, since these aren't part of the franchise. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Navbox ??

Cartoon Boy and Vilnisr - it doesn't appear to make any difference to the appearance which of your two edit's stand. I presume there's been a change in the way the WP template works. Why don't you comment on the change and resolve which is the current standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impeachable (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that! About navbox: "Star Trek navbox" provides more info and more links to main articles which makes navigation shorter and easier!Vilnisr (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though an edit war is on the horizon since Cartoon Boy has gone and reverted the change again, or so it seems. Can you guys talk it out please? Personally, I think the "Star Trek navbox" template is the better option. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There is no war, at least for me. I did not revert last Cartoon Boy edit and i don't want to fight! I think "Star Trek navbox" template is the better, but i wan't to hear other opinions! I vote for "Star Trek navbox"!Vilnisr (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I'm sorry. I did not mean to start an edit war, and I will voice my opinion - I seriously believe that the navbox template is way too oversized. Sure, it's more informative, but sometimes less is more, and that is the case here, I think. For starters, I think it's better to have the separate television series and films in their own section. Is there any way we can make the navbox seem less "clogged"? That's my main problem with this - it almost seems like too much information is there - I can't navigate my way around it, actually. To be completely honest, since the beginning, I have had no idea as to why the navbox template was started when we had the regular one. I can't be the only one who thinks this. Again, I am sorry for my edits. I never intended to provoke an edit war, and I apoligise if I got on anyone's bad side. I seriously believe that the first template is the best way to go. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 3:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is big, but it's because there are 6 series in Star Trek, but I don't see a problem to navigate, 'cuz there are category for each series with main articles (characters, seasons and movies), where you can chose where to go, it's also easier to navigate between different series. Only way to make it smaller, is removing character list. I think, it's not necesary, but i'm ready to discuss it! About second template, i think it's completely uncategorized, example: movie list.

"it's better to have the separate television series and films in their own section" - movies are a part of series and can't be separated from them!

p.s. it's not a biggest navbox Vilnisr (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is too much crap in the navbox. For instance, there is a link to the main page for each series' episodes, there is no need to also have a link to each season,

· Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7) ·.

Also, having links to the main characters of each series makes it messy, those links belong in the navbox for the particular series. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved intents back- Some university pages have switched to this style. Take for example my alma mater. {{Texas A&M University}} I could make quick navbox replacement. Oldag07 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It partly done:

Oldag07 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

if you put in just Franchise + (series x) it will be difficulty to navigate between series, but if you put all series (Franchise + Series 1 + series 2 + ...), it will be the same, so easier to collapse "Star Trek navbox" Vilnisr (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please clarify? Thanks. . 192.231.40.3 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

clarify what?Vilnisr (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with IP person. could you please restate what you are trying to say Vilnisr? thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

your navbox contain 2 sections ("Franchise" and "The Original Series"), and if it's stay this way and you want to make similar navbox for each series, like ("Franchise" + "The Animated Series");("Franchise" + "The Next Generation")..., then it will be difficulty to navigate between series, but if you want to make just 1 navbox with "Franchise"+"The Original Series"+"The Animated Series"+"The Next Generation"+....., then it will be the same what we have right now and then there is no reason to change it Vilnisr (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First interracial kiss

While it was the first depiction of an interracial kiss on American television, in the take broadcast there was no actual lip contact. According to Nichelle Nichols, quoted in a book about the making of Star Trek, they shot the scene several times, with and without actually kissing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

....correct. They filmed the no-contact "kiss" (which you can kind of tell if you know you're looking for it). Which is why it's important the article is framed in terms of first *depiction*, if not actual, i'racial kiss. --EEMIV (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhura

I recently changed the description of Uhura from "African" to "Black". I prefer "Black" because a in the context (Cultural Impact) it's the fact that she was black that is significant, not her African-ness b) I didn't find any evidence that Uhura was African, in the sense of being from Africa. Presumably in the Star Trek Universe Earth is more multicultural even than it is today. (I admit that I am partly persuaded by Ouroboros' statement that she spoke Swahili, but she was also the ship linguist if I remember). c) African isn't specific enough. Even today some Africans are white. I'm not set on my opinions, but I'd like some other views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The earliest version was "African-American", until a few days ago. It was perfectly fine.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Uhura was actually American? If not then I don't think it was 'fine'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Canonically, she is from the future's "United States of Africa" according to both Paramount's official "StarTrek.com" web-site, and the original "Writer's Guide" for the series, although this has never been mentioned on screen. A rough draft of a script for the Animated Series said the same. However, Jordi LaForge (spelling??) is from the "African Confederation". At any rate, the writer's certainly do NOT consider Uhura to be from the USAmerica, so my mistake.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that does persuade me that Uhura is definitely African, and so removes my objection b) above. However I still think in context that the culturally significant aspect of her is that she was black, rather than African. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For good or bad reasons, the preferred usage these days is African. (And the word 'black' sometimes includes natives of India.) "African" is usually used to refer to the indigenous people of Africa rather than people of European descent who live in Africa, though to us Yanks it might be clearer if we said "Native African" in the sense when we mean "Native American". Typically in the American continent, words like Canadian or American refer to a nationality or citizenship-, while across the Atlantic, one more frequently means an ethnic ancestry when speaking of Danish, English, French, German, or Dutch. The word "French" can refer to either nationality or ancestry. In the German language a German citizen is Bundesdeutsche but one of German ancestry is Volksdeutsche. In essence, the language is a tad unclear, but these days the preferred term for dark-skinned people of African descent is "African" rather than "black".--WickerGuy (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also on screen evidence of her being African, as opposed to just being black but having been born elsewhere. She was fluent in Swahili, on screen. I'd add that the initial edit changing it to "black" has the summary "we're all adults here," which says to me that this may have been made out of a perceived feeling of "African" being used because it was "politically correct." I would disagree with this notion, it is being used because in this case it is factual, the character was from Africa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the summary, and I agree with the factuality of African. However I still think that the culturally significant thing about Uhura was that she was black, not that she was African. Had the communications officer looked like African Pieter Willem Botha it would have been a lot less culturally significant. The use of African as a euphemism for black is restricted to the United States as far as I know. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In Europe the term 'black African' is often used, but since WP says use American usage for American topics and Star Trek is an American TV series, isn't that an argument for using "African"?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I would agree, but "black African" would be understood everywhere, whereas "African" would be less precise and less clear. And of course "African" is really skating round the issue. A white African would not have had a cultural impact. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen someone like Botha described as simply "African." Possibly South African, but virtually always Boer, which is a distinct, white ethnic group. A group that didn't start out in Africa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

However he clearly is African, being from Africa. In any other part of the article this wouldn't be significant. But Uhura's cultural significance stems from her blackness, not her African-ness. Had she been portrayed as black and from America her cultural significance would have been none the less. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The context of the reaction to Uhura was the character's ethnicity, not region of origin. It would make sense to use the ethnic term with the most neutral connotation, which would be the scientifically acceptable Negroid. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how many ethnic groups actually live in the CONTINENT of Africa? Negroid is no more scientific than Zulu, Bantu, Ibibio, Maasai, Tuareg or many other terms. In fact there is no concise scientific definition of "race" with reference to humans, as you can get as much variation WITHIN some "races" as BETWEEN...82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

I modified the entry "Uhura was part of the original series' pioneering multicultural cast;[1] she was one of the first major black characters on an American television series." because I believe the sentence is misleading and confuses the character "Nyota Uhrua" with the actor Nichelle Nichols. My reasoning is as follows…

First off, Uhura is not part of the "cast." Dictionary.com defines "cast" as a noun to mean "The group of performers to whom parts are assigned; players." In other words, cast refers to the actors, not the characters. Furthermore, I believe that it is the misuse of this word that may be at the core of the confusion surrounding how to describe the ethnicity of Uhura, the character.

"Black" is a 20th century culturally biased term that changes from generation to generation. 50 years ago it was negro. Then it was colored. Now its changing to African-American. Unless someone can prove that Uhura was ever referred to as "black" in the series, then term "black" can only be used to describe the actor, not the character. There is no reason to believe Uhrua would ever have used that term to describe herself, or even that it would have occurred to her to do so. Nor would any other ST-TOS character describe Uhura in such a way. I believe that in Uhura's time, these types of descriptions were no longer part of their vocabulary. The term "black" then really refers to Nichelle Nichols, not to Uhura and I would argue that such terms should be eliminated entirely when discussing the race and/or ethnicity of Star Trek characters. And while I agree that a reference to Uhura's ethnicity is important in order to provide context for the character's greater meaning to the audience, we should use terms that are accurate but not culturally biased. And so, now the sentence looks like this…

Uhura was an important part of the original series' multicultural crew and one of the first characters of African decent to be featured on an American television series. --SmidgeStream (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have noted that in fact the television show does make reference to Uhura being African because in the first Kahn episode (space seed i think...) She loses her memory and reverts to what they say is her native language Swahili. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender2112 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Academy Award

The article states that the 2009 Star Trek film saw the franchises first Academy Award. Didn't Star Trek: The Motion Picture win best soundtrack at the 1980 awards?86.183.71.248 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It was nominated, but the winner was "A Little Romance". Donners (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain James Kirk of the Enterprise and Captain James Cook of the Endeavour

I have often seen reference to this similarity of naming. "Enterprise" and "Endeavour" even have very similar meanings in English (something you exert yourself doing and a business undertaking) and both voyages lasted many years, discovered strange new lands and went to places no (European) man had gone before. Can anybody say if this is pure co-incidence (I doubt it), or if it was an intended reference by the programme's original creators? Either way, I think the parallelism should be mentioned in the article. TiffaF (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple fan deduced parallelism shouldn't be mentioned in the article unless it can be cited in a reliable source as something scholars are talking about, or cited as intentional on the part of the production crew. I think you're making a big stretch, personally, given that the concept for the show as basically "wagon train in space." If we allow this in, not only would it be original research, but it would open the door to lots of other "fan theories." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read in a couple places that Roddenberry partially modeled Captain Kirk on the character of Horatio Hornblower, but have never read anything about the Captain Cook bizness. Agreed that without a source, it should not be mentioned. However, I have also read that the "wagon train to the stars [not space]" concept was a pitch that Roddenberry gave to NBC but inwardly Roddenberry never really took it that seriously.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed James Cook is mentioned in the James T. Kirk article. A Google search on "James Cook James Kirk" and came up with the following: [5] [6], but no mention of the similarity in the ships' names or missions. Maybe this is a US:UK thing, Captain Cook is better known this side of the Atlantic, and possibly no-one in the US asked Roddenberry about the similarities. Hopefully somebody can come up with a reference from the production crew as to the inspiration for both Kirk's and the Enterprise's names. TiffaF (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Making of Star Trek

I think this book deserves its own article. Is there a reason it doesnt have one? I believe its pretty important. amazon link provided.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New series rumors?

I've been hearing rumors that a new Star Trek series is being planned. Further digging (and my interest in Dead Like Me) lead me to these pages:

• Part II of Bryan Fuller's interview with iF Magazine,
• New Star Trek TV show (SFF Media),
• Bryan Fuller serious about creating new Star Trek series (TrekMovie.com) and
• Former 'Star Trek' Scribe Bryan Fuller Calls For Franchise's Return To TV.

But these are all kinda old-ish... I didn't want to add anything to the article itself, because my sources are old and as far as I've heard, nothing's official yet. I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this stuff, especially if it's more recent. Thanks! cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any updates?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

I certainly share in your excitement about a new Star Trek series. However, I don't think it is Wikipedia's policy to comment on those type of rumors. See WP:CRYSTAL/ It is definitely something we will post the minute there is an official announcement from CBS, or whoever is producing that show. Oldag07 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New series rumor: ‎"Star Trek: Endless Dark" - An utterly new star trek television series set a few hundred years after the end of Voyager. The federation has worked through exploration of the four quadrants, and is beginning it's journeys into the endless night between the galaxies. Set for launch by 2014 pending sufficient funding and studio approval. Kemrin (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again rumors by definition do not belong in Wikipedia until there is an official announcement.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Production History chart

I am not to sure and please do correct me I am wrong, but I suspect there to be a small error on the production history chart. Wasn't the last NG film "Nemesis" meant to be set after Voyager had returned home. The chart shows Nemesis to be on a level time as the other NG films and the series and I suspect this to be wrong as Captain Janeway from Voyager appears in Nemesis as an Admiral which means Nemesis should be below Voyager on the chart..not in line with the NG series etc. Footballgy (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the different levels on the chart within each century actually mean earlier or later within that century. There seem to be just chronological levels (2100s, 2200s, 2300s). The last one is then divided into three levels by series (TNG, DS9, VOY), not by chronology. "Generations," "First Contact," and "Insurrection" all took place during "Deep Space Nine," as did the last season or so of TNG. "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager" overlapped for a number of seasons, and some of those TNG movies overlapped "Voyager" as well. Only "Nemesis" is really set after everything else. Perhaps there needs to be a way to make more clear that the 2300s are being split by series, not chronology? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek on the radio?

Was there a conversation in Temple Grandin (film) where Grandin and her second college room mate talk about Star Trek broadcast on the radio? Any more info on that? --Bensin (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Straczynski and Zabel

I promised a while back to create a history of star trek page. This was the compromise to remove this passage:

An attempt was also made by J. Michael Straczynski and Bryce Zabel to 'reboot' the franchise in 2004 (including crew of the original series), but Paramount ignored the proposal as they were not "even willing to talk about Star Trek".

Honestly, I am not a huge expert on Star Trek history, and I really just don't feel qualified to write such a page.

As for this section, I still don't think this is notable enough to keep. If we were to add this back, we also need to mention Bryan Singer's version [7] and the proposed Star Trek Final Frontier animated series [8]. These are equality notable reboots. However, the fact that Paramount actually did have a plan for a reboot. The fact that this reboot was successful, and the fact that this page is still supposed to be a broad overview of Star Trek not about every minutia, leads me to believe that a paragraph about failed reboots really would not make much sense. Oldag07 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a brief two-sentence mention of multiple failed reboots all in the mid-2000s without minutiae is the way to go.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like your changes WickerGuy. Oldag07 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of page

Some jackass replaced the name Gene Rodenberry with Khalil Khan, throughout the article.

Took 4 layers of undo to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.226.121 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for correcting it. If you find yourself reverting a lot of vandalism, a tool like Twinkle is a big time-saver! ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossovers

I would first like to mention that memory Alpha has an amazing resource for crossovers: [9]. I really appreciate the enthusiasm put into the new crossovers section. I really enjoy seeing Spock in the episode Unification, and the nice touch with the EMH in First Contact. But do you think this is really the page for a crossovers section? This is supposed to be a broad outline of the entire franchise of Star Trek. I think we can divide the crossovers into the individual show pages. Maybe that would be more appropriate. Oldag07 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, a brief discussion of crossovers here, along with a more detailed discussion in other places seems to be the way to go. The original entry was too much of a bare-bones list, and as such properly removed per WP:TRIVIA. I may have put in more depth of detail than necessary, but I think a brief mention of it should be here.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would submit that, in order to satisfy triviality concerns, any mention of a crossover should be backed up with third-party sourcing in order to establish that the crossover was significant. Currently the section lacks sourcing of any kind, which I think is a glaring problem. We need to establish that the crossovers are significant to people beyond Trek fans. Doniago (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In order to get out the bullet-list format (a major concern re WP:TRIVIA, I supplied a context to explain the significance of the major crossovers, but was working mainly from memory. The significance of the episode "Unification" should be extremely easy to source. It's easily the most-discussed crossover in the franchise's history.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi WG, definitely appreciate your efforts towards improving the section, but I am concerned that while sources like the TNG Companion establish the facts of the matter, they don't really go a long way towards establishing non-triviality as the sources themselves in this case are biased and somewhat trivia-centric. Real world coverage talking about how Kirk's appearance in GEN bridges the films, for instance, would be a great thing to have. I think getting sources added is definitely a step in the right direction though! Doniago (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, in the sense that TV crew, critics, and fans may differ on what is or is not significant. Currently, I've cited three books by independent critics, one newspaper article from on independent critic, and three TV series companion volumes that heavily cite the TV crew, and one show history by insiders and one interview from a cast member. So it's kind of 4 for 45 now with "external" sources and "internal" sources at this point.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I now note that in two of the three cases where I cite a TV series "companion" volume that book is in turn directly quoting a script writer for the show and talking about the writing process. In the one remaining case, I am citing the opinion of that book's author which may be admittedly trivia-centric. The cite from the show-history by involved parties (the book by Dillard and Sackett- Sackett was a script supervisor for Next Gen) is also quoting TV series crew. Broadly, I realize while "fan book" is a tad questionable (5 out my 9 sources so far) as a source, I think if they are quoting TV cast and crew that's a tad better. In only one case, do I cite the author's personal opinion. Perhaps I am being nitpickingly defensive.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the work you've put into it I'd hate to boldly go removing your info without at least hearing from other editors first. If the citations can be updated to include info from less directly-involved sources I think that should be done...if not, I won't make a stink about it unless there's a more clear consensus to do so. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Per the discussion so far, any additional material about the crossover should be referenced using 3rd party reliable sources. My personal opinion is that if the crossovers are only discussed in companions, dvd extras, or fan sites (or even Memory Alpha), then it's just not enough for this particular article. Independent critics and writers need to discuss it. Heck, even a review from the Onion AV Club would do. AstroCog (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much my feeling in a nutshell. Ideally the sourcing should originate from Trek-independent sources. Doniago (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently all the material in paragraphs 3 and 4 is from third-party Trek-independent sources (though one is a 3rd-party interview with a cast member). Paragraph 1 is introductory. Paragraph 2 simply lists the three times that a cast member from a prior series appears in the premiere (season 1, episode 1) episode of a subsequent series, and the two cases of character series-transfer (Worf and O'Brien to DS9) and is entirely unsourced.

That leaves Paragraph 5, which mostly cites series book-companions usually in turn citing crew. There are four(4) citations in paragraph 5, two which attempt to establish significance, one being author's own opinion, and one citing the crew's opinion. The other two citations simply cite a show writer talking about the difficulties porting a character from one series to another (Q) but make no effort to establish significance. IMO, the latter two are legit for WP, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. That leaves two citations which are problem areas, one being the show crew thinking a crossover is significant (Klingons from TOS appearing on DS9), and one being the fan-book's author thinking a crossover is significant (Sarek on NextGen).--WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if...

Is the section long enough now that this would be worth splitting off into a separate article while leaving a much shorter summary of it here??--WickerGuy (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be a separate article. RJ4 (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe we can merge the existing text into memory alpha. I think that any crossover information should be put in the various television series pages. Because if we really wanted to have a section about crossovers on a page that is dedicated to the Star Trek franchise as a whole, we would have to add books, to this page. That would be very messy. Oldag07 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible New Series

I have grave concerns that the information about David Foster's possible Trek series is so speculative at this point that to include it in the article, unless more prominent sourcing is available, may be a case of lending it undue weight. I am moving the information here pending conensus to include it and asking for feedback from other editors. Doniago (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible new series

===Possible new series=== David Foster of 1941 Entertainment has announced that he's developed a new series that will use the original ideals of Gene Roddenberry, but not be too "old-fashioned". According to Foster: “ The series concept is fully developed, subject to change of course, with a solid 5-7 year series plan, pilot script and a conceptualized finale that intends to define Star Trek for generations, extensive character bios, costume and ship/set designs, and more. This is a drastic departure from the typical 8-10 page treatment of the previously pitched Star Trek series ideas that have not included even a pilot script. ” The series will take place after Voyager and remain faithful to the timeline before the alternate reality established in the 2009 film, so it'll appeal to older Trek fans and not intrude upon the new film series. Will Star Trek Return to the Small Screen? - Shadowlocked

It's not even at the stage of a pitch at the moment - it's simply "some dude thinks this would be cool and has had an idea" - should not be included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this the David Foster who produced the series House? Maybe a one-sentence mention, but not more, and only if we note other series pitches if any.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No as far as I can determine, it's not him. Anyway, he's a pro, there is no way what is described in there is the work of a pro. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its being pitched now. Keep it on. 70.70.159.38 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Rumor isn't fact and unreferenced rumors are not put in Wikipedia. Either substantiate or I or someone else will delete it. Ckruschke (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Impact section is overblown…

Although it has a citation attached, the claim that Star Trek influenced the development of all the devices listed just isn’t backed up by the article (which includes the disclaimer: "Whether it was because they were inspired by the show or because "Star Trek" writers often based science fiction on science fact, today's popular personal technology gadgets resemble or have similar functions to the show's nonworking props."). Just because the series showed a medical scanner can’t really be used to support the argument that it in any way inspired or influenced the development of something like the MRI scanner. Jock123 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I reviewed the cited source (which did not make such lofty claims) and removed some items and reworded others. There is still too much trivia here, IMHO.

Thoughts, anyone? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good points, still. I stumbled across this section while researching the influence of SF on science; it's a very dubious issue, almost like folklore :). So I've been bold and I have rephrased the following: "The Star Trek franchise inspired the designers of many modern technologies, such as the personal digital assistant and the flip-open mobile phone." to "The Star Trek franchise has inspired some designers of technologies, such as the Palm OS and Keyhole/Google Earth."

The reference only contains one valid confirmation:

"When I designed the UI (user interface) for the Palm OS back in '93, my first sketches were influenced by the UI of the Enterprise bridge panels," said Rob Haitani, product design architect for Palm-One Inc. [...]" - this is valid confirmation.

"Years later, when we designed the first Treo (a combo phone and wireless PDA), it had a form factor similar to the communicators in the original series. [...]" - this is not a confirmation, it's just a description of resemblance.

There's no other confirmations in the article; IMHO the journalist was doing the usual Nostradamus error.

Further, I've rephrased the following: "Michael Jones, Chief technologist of Google Earth, has cited the tricorder's mapping capability as an->one inspiration in the development of Google Earth."

From the reference: "Indeed Jones cited “Father of GIS” Roger Tomlinson, who in the late 1960s wrote of the ultimate GIS which would be a computer globe of interactive data, as an inspiration behind the development of Keyhole/Google Earth, another inspiration was Mr Spock’s Tricorder which could tell the science officer all the information he needed to describe his local environment."

I've also rephrased "Beyond Star Trek's technological innovations" to "Beyond Star Trek's fictional innovations".

Side note; For those with further interest in the folklore phenomenon, here is a link which discusses it:

"Modifiable Futures: Science Fiction at the Bench" (Colin Milburn, University of California)

Here is also a pretty good article (lousy title, though): "From fantasy to reality: how science fiction has influenced technology"

Any objections? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent changes. However, even after looking up your reference, I'm not completely sure what you mean by the term "Nostradamus error". I think you mean that after-the-fact post hoc it might look like Star Trek predicted something.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Sorry, I was a little tired after researching this stuff, so I was quite sloppy there. Yes, that was exactly what I meant. There are obviously a lot of resemblances between SF and science, but to prove that SF has made any significant influence on actual scientific development is very hard. There are some interesting cases though, where SF possibly has influenced some communication of science and possibly even some science funding. But that's another story :). --Dna-Dennis (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the inventor of the cell phone has said he modeled the flip-up look and feel of early cell phones on the communicators in Trek.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the first cell phones did not have any flip-up. But it could be a later design influence, but I haven't been able to confirm it in my previous research. I'll try to see if I can find anything...--Dna-Dennis (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I can't find any useful reference for the flip-up, and I will also edit Flip (form) since it makes the claim with a reference that does not confirm anything. But it is confirmed here that the first handheld mobile phone was inspired by 'Trek, and that is even more remarkable IMO. After a brief edit conflict this is now correctly reflected in the article. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO PcWorld Magazine is a better (reliable) reference than this one (Bty I added both, as secondary and tertiary refs).--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's generally more reliable. But the problem was that the article did not comfirm anything, it only described resemblances (The link is here for future talk reference). I see no problem with using this ref somewhere else though, but not for confirmation of influence on real technology. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I also like this article on geek.com. life imitating art or art imitating life? ( Afew other tertiary refs: [10] [11] --UnQuébécois (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, I knew about the Nokia. The ref [12] claims "It’s no secret that modern flip phones were inspired by Star Trek communicators" and refers to Wikipedia, but there's no info on this in that wikiarticle, that's some really fun recursion :). And here is a really good link if anyone wants to dig really deep into the world of SF innovations: "Timeline of Science Fiction Ideas, Technology and Inventions". --Dna-Dennis (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Beginnings section says "... Roddenberry reduced his direct involvement in Star Trek..." in the third season. The TOS section says "The show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was not involved in the show during its third and final year of production due to a dispute with NBC." Which is it? Sure, you can "reduce" all the way to zero, but I don't think that's that the Beginnings section is implying. Mattack (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Roddenberry resigned as producer, but two story lines of his were produced during the final season of the original show.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible further subtopics (for the main page)

I'd like to request a section:

Philosophy of Star Trek

The German site has some words about the ideals of the Star Trek Universe, e.g. the Principal Directive (if that is the correct translation). Also it is a common anecdote that different civilizations represent different nations (as seen from the US), e.g. Federation = USA, Klingons = Japan, Romolans = China or Soviet Union.

Unfortunately I don't have any reliable resources so far. If you think this is not relevant here, you can remove it, but please leave a note on my talk page. MelchiorG (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's actually Prime directive, and most producers on the show would deny that the various alien races stand for specific nations. There are some good references about Roddenberry's specific intentions especially a lengthy interview he gave in the '90s to the magazine The Humanist.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding a cast section to the featured film table

I was wondering what people think about adding a cast section to the featured films table. Oldag07 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Number	Title	Release date	Cast
1	Star Trek: The Motion Picture	December 7, 1979	The Original Series
2	Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan	June 4, 1982
3	Star Trek III: The Search for Spock	June 1, 1984
4	Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home	November 26, 1986
5	Star Trek V: The Final Frontier	June 9, 1989
6	Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country	December 6, 1991
7	Star Trek: Generations	November 18, 1994	The Next Generation*
8	Star Trek: First Contact	November 22, 1996
9	Star Trek: Insurrection	December 11, 1998
10	Star Trek: Nemesis	December 13, 2002
11	Star Trek	May 8, 2009	J.J. Abrams cast**
12	Star Trek sequel	May 17, 2013 (expected)

* Several characters from the original series play parts in Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: Voyager characters play cameos in First Contact and Nemesis
** Leonard Nimoy plays a significant role in the 2009 film, Star Trek
Oldag07 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Modified table, fixed my grammar Oldag07 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that members of Voyager appear in First Contact (The Doctor) and Nemesis (Janeway). The Wookieepedian (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Good point. I am not sure if this information belongs on Star Trek (film series) or this page. Oldag07 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I added suggestions, and removed the sort. There is no real need to sort out the films. If you sort by date, it will be by month which makes no sense. Also I am not sure why you would sort by title. 1-6 have numbers in the title. Oldag07 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)