Talk:Star Trek/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Star Trek universe

redirects here, but isn't discussed in the article. It should either have its own article (cf. Harry Potter universe or Matrix universe) or it should be deleted. Serendi^podous 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly agree that a Star Trek Universe page would be nice, I am not sure of the value of removing that redirect. Oldag07 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because creating a redirect to an article that contains no information about said redirect is misleading. Serendi^podous 11:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A redirect to the original page just tells the reader that there is no Star Trek universe page built and the name is simply a place-holder - it isn't "misleading". If it bothers you Serendipodous, feel free to write it. Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Good Article Run

This page has vastly improved since its last GA run. This page hasn't gone though a nomination in 45 years. I am going to try again. Oldag07 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Still needs a quite a few work but I am willing to help if I can. I can also research and then peer review the article on the problems some time too if you want. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Jhenderson! Oldag07 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Trek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Pass

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The reliable sources look good enough. However, I am concerned that IMDB is not really considered a reliable source, and they should be removed and replaced with the appropriate citations. Referencing styles also need to be consistent as well.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nice work on getting the article up to GA status.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

TOS

It looks like no matter how we try to work it the whole TOS issue in the introductory section is going to be "chunky". The name of the show was Star Trek. I think the apocryphal re-labeling mentioned later in the section is sufficient. Thoughts? --HullIntegrity (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC) **And I am probably dredging up old arguments again, right?**

The Google Doodle

I moved the Google Doodle comment to the end of cultural impact (in the intro it sounds like an advertisement for Google), but it is still awkward there as it is just sort of sitting there. Anyone have a better idea? I think it is interesting, but not THAT big of a deal. --HullIntegrity (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for just deleting it as trivial nonsense, but it looks like someone has already done that. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

There are specific criterion for putting in cultural references as outlined in WP:In popular culture. This includes having secondary sources to establish cultural significance. I am the deleter. And yes, it is also spammish insofar as it is (indirectly) a promo for Google.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It still is a culturally relevant homage and should go . . . somewhere. A note? Seriously, I have no idea. --HullIntegrity (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to go against consensus, but how many millions of people use Google everyday? There are plenty of secondary sources mentioning it.

• http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/09/07/star-trek-google-doodle/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/star-trek-doodle-google-boldly-celebrates-tv-seriess-46th-birthday-with-stellar-animated-adventure/2012/09/07/01cc0fd8-f918-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html
• http://nvonews.com/2012/09/10/star-trek-2-the-next-generation-google-celebrates-with-a-doodle/

Oldag07 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting crossovers section

I am not a big fan of the crossovers section. Crossovers make up a minor part of the franchise, not something that should be in the official summary of the franchise as a whole. Objections? I plan on removing it this weekend if there isn't any. Oldag07 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very short and has a hat-note linking to the larger article. At least keep the hat-note.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much point either. Would be suitable more on the articles for the actual shows, not the over-all article. Charlr6 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now trimmed it to about 60-70% of its original length.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I do like the trim WickerGuy. I also I agree with Charlr6, we should note the actual crossovers on the show pages rather than here. Oldag07 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I might try to add the show specific crossovers to the actual show pages first, but unless someone objects, I will remove the crossovers section this weekend. Oldag07 (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed it. Preserved most recent version of the section here. Oldag07 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that the other pages already do a decent job of discussing crossovers. Oldag07 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossovers

Main article: Star Trek crossovers

Several characters within the Star Trek franchise, primary and secondary, often made crossover appearances between one live-action series and another. This included appearances of established characters on premiere episodes of new series, and a few long-term transfers from one series to another. The appearances of Spock on Next Generation and of the time-travel of the crew of Deep Space Nine to the era of The Original Series were especially lauded by both fans and critics. On the other hand, the appearance of Next Generation characters in the final episode ofEnterprise, was poorly received.

Heading "cultural references"

I never liked this phrase:

Star Trek has permeated pop culture with many references. Several Star Trek parodies and fan productions have been produced.

I have tried to write something to replace it, but this just doesn't feel right.

Star Trek has influenced the world by inspiring technological innovation, including one of television's first multiracial casts, and being an inspiration for many science fiction franchises. On a less serious note, several Star Trek has several parodies of it, and several fan productions have been produced of it.

Suggestions? Oldag07 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it up, due to lack of comments. I am going to try to make it fit best, but please fix it as you see fit.Oldag07 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Multi- or interracial kiss?

In the intro paragraph, it says "multiracial cast", which makes sense, but "multiracial kiss" suggests some kind of an inter-planetary orgy. I think it should be "interracial kiss", which is indeed what it is called further down the article. I don't know how to edit the intro paragraph, so I am trying this, hoping someone will read this and make the change. (If I am posting this in the wrong place, please kindly move it where it belongs.)

Kisses are important, you know, most of us started with one.

It says to put four tildes. Kinda weird, but here goes:

97.127.183.120 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed the sentence in the lead to say "inter-racial". Since the page isn't protected against the edits of anon IP addresses, you can feel to make any future changes you find (you can edit the lead by clicking the "edit" link at the top of the page). Ckruschke (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Cast section of movies

I moved the cast section to this page Star Trek (film series). To me it seems overly detailed for a page dedicated to Star Trek as a whole, but I don't feel strongly if you want to move it back. I did make a few changes to the chart. Spock in the movie The Search for Spock was played by multiple actors. Oldag07 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

Per our BLP policy, contentious claims need multiple reliable sources but there is a lot of stuff about Roddenberry that makes some really bold claims with no references at all. The BLP policy does cover recently dead figures. Could someone attempt to source these claims. I would rather not add citation tags but it may have to come to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, we could just move the unsupported claims, especially if they fall short of WP:V, WP:OR, etc., to the Talk page, which works well in some cases. To which claims are you referring? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have done that before and it does seem to work well. If you look at the article there are a number of unreferenced claims about the figure stuck at the ends of a few paragraphs. Looks like they were added recently perhaps.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced claims and inserted them into this Talk page (below). Do you know of any others? I didn't examine it with a microscope, but the other claims I saw appeared to be properly sourced. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced/unsupported assertions moved to Talk page

Below are some fairly major claims that were inserted into the article without proper sourcing. I can't find a supporting source in the Refs section, either, so they have been moved here until a source can be cited.

From After Roddenberry:

The show also ran for seven seasons until 2001, making it the longest-running show in UPN's history.

From The Original Series (1966–1969):

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, with the exception of having co-authored two episodes produced that year.

From The Next Generation (1987–1994):

The first two seasons were largely produced by the original creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry. Beginning in Season 3, the primary overseer of the show was Rick Berman who also largely responsible for the remaining Trek television series as well as the films involving the cast of The Next Generation.

Drama shows in that era, as opposed to a talk show or game shows, rarely went into syndication in first run rather than airing on the same network throughout America. Next Generation became one of the most popular syndicated shows of its era and inaugurated a market for syndicated science fiction series.

Please do not re-insert these claims without citing a reliable source supporting their assertions. (IMDB and MemoryAlpha are user-contributed and not, in most cases, considered reliable.) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the material from AR, though it's probably true. All the other stuff is well-known. Roddenberry's walkout and disengagement from Season 3 of Original Series has been mentioned in dozens and dozens of sources and should be easy to document, as are the remaining claims. NextGen was a complete game-changer re syndicated TV- no one had ever done that with a drama series before. Now to find sources--WickerGuy (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The claim about TNG and syndication is asserted on a book about the history of NBC entitled

National Broadcasting Company edited by Michele Hilmes, Michael Lowell Henry page 210. My guess is that virtually every autobiography of the original cast will back up GR's walkout from season 3.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Roddenberry's walkout is backed by this bio of DeForest Kelley From Sawdust to Stardust: The Biography of DeForest Kelley, Star Trek's Dr McCoy By Terry Lee Rioux p. 180. Roddenberry remained officially listed as executive producer but gave up maintaining any control after NBC moved the show to Friday nights at 10.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Colours: Production history

The colour coding, the orange and the orange-pink, are very hard to distinguish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Better? Braincricket (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Much! Thank you. (I did try myself to play with the colours, but it was a bit complicated for me). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening Rewrite

I've tightened the opening sentences. They were absolutely fine but I felt as though we needed an article opening without critic opinions or awards mentioned at least for the first three or four sentences. I've rewritten the opening but if you feel as though the earlier version was better then feel free to restore that version.

Sluffs (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Warp-five

In the section describing the Enterprise TV show, it mentions "... the voyages of Earth's first warp-five capable starship." I feel certain this should be warp drive, but it is also possible that warp-five is some Star Trek thing of which I was unaware. So I figured I would mention something here. Donpayette (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The first warp drive ship is a different one (see Star Trek: First Contact), the Enterprise just was quicker than anything before her. --91.10.50.182 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More than likely it's just a term you've not heard before: Star Trek: Enterprise#Cast of characters "captain of Earth's first Warp 5 starship, Enterprise" Narom (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Release Date

For some reasons, the article did not reflect reality (premiere of Star Trek on April 7 in Sydney), but the "official" version (whatever that entails). That is of course a gross mistake, Wikipedia is not an "official" Paramount medium, it must report reality, not "official" versions of it. --79.223.16.15 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Two things: firstly the column on the table is named 'Release date' and not 'Premiered'; secondly the dates listed for all of the other films are all the dates that they went on general release. So for consistancy the May 8th date is the correct one for the table. Additionally the 11th film wasn't first shown in Sydney; the day before on April 6th, 2009 Leonard Nimoy and a couple of the film's producers took the film to a cinema in Buda, Texas, intentionally stopped a showing of 'Wrath of Khan' and had the 11th film played for the expectant audience instead.81.145.47.66 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Franchise infobox needs updating.

The infobox on this article for some reason only lists the films and the TV shows and doesn't include the comics, novels and numerous video game tie-ins. Why is that? It's a media franchise infobox after all... --DesignDeath (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

"In the year 2013, the 12th Annual Official STAR TREK Convention held in the United States in Las Vegas, Nevada broke the previous Guinness world record for the largest gathering of people dressed as Star Trek characters, having counted 1085 people."

For an article that is supposed to be about Star Trek as a whole, this seems obscure. Like talking about Obama, and having a whole section of the article about what is his favorite color. It fit in well in the Cultural influence of Star Trek page. Note that there are a lot of records Star Trek has broke. [1] A section about it, or even a paragraph would include multiple records that the franchise as earned. Oldag07 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reboot or Alternate Reality or J.J. Abrams Cast?

There is some inconsistancy in how the last two feature films are catagorized. The chart at the start of the 'Production History' section they are titled 'Alternate Reality film series': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Production_history. Yet further down the part of that section discussing these films is titled 'Reboot': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Reboot. However, the chart in the 'Film Franchise' section they are called 'J.J. Abrams cast': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Feature_films. Then on the template at the bottom of the page they are called 'Alternate Reality' again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#External_links. Shouldn't they all be titled the same so as not to cause confusion by readers?

To that end, I propose that all be titled 'Reboot', including the template. First, 'Alternate Reality' is an in-universe description that is inconsistant with how other parts in the Star Trek franchise are titled. 'The Original Series' is not titled 'Original Timeline: Captain Kirk Era'. It is titled 'The Original Series'. Same is true of the 'The Animated Series', 'The Next Generation', etc. Second, WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here. Most refer to the 2009 film as a reboot. Thus, it makes sense to call it a reboot here too. It is also consistant with how other franchises that have had reboots are titled on Wikipedia such as Planet of the Apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_of_the_Apes.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of other editors on this. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally it is accepted that the new films are 'Alternate reality (I've changed the cast section on the table to reflect this as in any case 'JJ Cast' is erronious as they may make additional films without JJ's input but with the same cast). In regards to the reboot bit, the term is really only being used in the context that the series has been restarted which is true and therefore it is accurate to say it has been 'rebooted', however in the context of the series/ franchise as a whole 'Alternate Reality' is the correct term (and for the record 'Original Kirk Era' and other similar phrases are being used to differentiate between the two in both official and unofficial capacities). --81.145.47.66 (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally accepted by whom? Most articles use the term 'Reboot'. I've only seen the new films catagorized as 'Alternate reality' here. WP:COMMONNAME should apply since it is more consistant with how other parts of the franchise are titled. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

'Alternate Reality' is used on the official sites and by the majority of the fandom, not to mention on both film's wiki pages and on the Memory Alpha and Beta wikis. As I stated it's all about the context and the 'reboot' term is used by general film and sci-fi websites and sources when discussing them. I've also changed the cast definition back, as I previously stated 'JJ cast' is untenable as it become inaccurate possibly as soon as the next film due to JJ's other commitments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.47.66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a website for fandom. It is for the general public. As you noted, 'Reboot' in the term that is used by general film websites. That's why WP:COMMONNAME should apply. And please don't revert again until consensus is reached. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:Real world applies here. In the context of the real-world production history, the new films are reboots. In the context of the fictional Star Trek universe, the events take place in an alternate reality. "Alternate reality" is appropriate for use in a plot summary where the context is the fictional world, but I would like to use "reboot" everywhere else (including the chart). Braincricket (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see where both of you are coming from. SonOfThornhill is correct in saying that wikipedia is fact based and not for specific audiences and I agree about the usage of the word Reboot. What I do know however is that the producers of the latest two films, particularly J.J Abrams and Roberto Orci, have definitely used the term 'Alternate Timeline' in interviews (probably viewable on Youtube or Dailymotion or whatever other video sites you prefer) and Orci has also said the same in a couple of Forewords/ Afterwords for the ongoing IDW comic series and the Countdown/ Countdown to Darkness comics as well; so it is the correct definition for productions in that timeline. I also agree with user:81.145.47.66, with respect to calling them the 'JJ cast'; we do already know that he likely will have nothing to do with the next film whilst he works on Star Wars (the producers and Paramount have already publicly said on record they want the next Trek film to be released during the 50th anniversary year in 2016), so yes it would be pretty awkward and daft to say the 'JJ and film 13 cast'. Another way to look at it would be to consider that films 1 - 6 are listed as TOS because they belong to that part of the franchise and the same for films 7 - 10 and TNG; films 11 - 13 have the same characters as TOS but played by a different cast and set in a different timeline ergo Alternative Timeline. One big game changer would of course be if a new series was produced with the current cast, then we would simply use the series subtitle instead - again another reason why the first ten films are listed TOS/TNG cast. Ultimately however this is besides the point as the mentioned sources involving the producers I would hope are proof enough. --2.220.52.201 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

First, do not make any further changes until WP:Consensus has been reached. Second, there is no objection to using the term 'Alternate Timeline' or 'Alternate Reality' in the text of the article. That is an accurate description, which is why the producers have used the term in interviews. However, what is in the text in not the point. It's how they are catagorized that is. The term 'Alternate Reality' is an in universe description that is inconsistant with how the other parts of the franchise have been described (e.g. The Original Series, The Animated Series, etc.) So both WP:Real world and WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here since that is how the new films are refered to by most websites and articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is NOT an In-Universe description it is a production definition. Second, your argument is moot point as the categorization would be same either way - look at any Star Trek site and you WILL see this. Case in point your own argument is that the official and accepted descriptions/ definitions aren't good enough and you disagree with yourself: 'there is no objection to using the term 'Alternate Timeline'....That is an accurate description', 'what is in the text in not the point. It's how they are catagorised that is' and 'description that is inconsistant'. How can it be ACCURATE and INCONSISTENT in the same context? For the record I've read into your editing history and it's clear that you have a habit of starting arguments for no good reason. So please just back off and actually do some research into what your discussing. --2.220.52.201 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is an in universe description, not a production definition. And my argument is not moot. This issue is not what any Star Trek site says because Wikipedia is NOT a Star Trek site. That's why guidelines such as WP:Real world and WP:COMMONNAME are used. Like it or not, 'Alternate Reality' is inconsistant with how all other parts of the franchise are titled and catagorized. Finally, there are certain rules of conduct here that you have broken. Editors must reach WP:Consensus before such major changes are made to an article. Also, you have been engaging in Edit warring and now have launched a personal attack which in in violation of the No personal attacks rule. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) To your first point: According to the Oxford Dictionary Online, a reboot is "something, especially a series of films or television programs, that has been restarted or revived". And according to Thomas Willits, writing for Bewildering Stories, a reboot means "to restart an entertainment universe that has already been previously established, and begin with a new story line and/or timeline that disregards the original writer’s previously established history, thus making it obsolete and void". The new films are, by definition, reboots.

To your second point: In the statement "The new Star Trek films are reboots set in an alternate timeline", reboot refers to the films themselves while alternate timeline refers to the fictional narrative within the films. Star Trek sites like Memory Alpha adopt an in-universe perspective, while Wikipedia does not. (E.g. USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) vs. USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). My interpretation of WP:MOSFICT is that we need to use reboot in section headers, charts, and templates so that Wikipedia doesn't devolve into a fan wiki. Braincricket (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"to restart an entertainment universe that has already been previously established, and begin with a new story line and/or timeline that disregards the original writer’s previously established history, thus making it obsolete and void". - This definition of Reboot is correct however it does not apply to the films as they follow on from previously established events; they're just shown in a way that doesn't require knowledge of the previous events - they do not disregard, ignore or 'make obsolete or void' anything that has gone before. Additionally the term 'Reboot' has only ever been used by third party reviewers and journalists when referring to said films. --81.145.47.66 (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a third party. It is not a Star Trek website. That is why WP:COMMONNAME applies here and an in-universe description is not appropriate. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary. WP:PSTS. Braincricket (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have already said, go and do some research before throwing your unsubstantiated opinions around - unlike you I've actually provided sources for my argument; YOU haven't, instead once again you just decided to start changing things around that you don't know anything about just because you don't like it. Further more user:81.145.47.66 is correct - the new films DO NOT ignore ANY of the previous history, therefore they DO NOT meet with the definition of 'Reboot'. --2.220.52.201 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything. I simply restored the article to it's previous state until WP:Consensus is reached here. While certain interviews with the producers were cited, no links were provided to them. I have stated Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME and linked to them. I suggest that you review them including WP:CIVIL. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

At your suggestion I did some research and found several articles that use the term reboot in regard to the new films. The first is from Variety which is considered the bible of the entertainment industry: http://variety.com/2013/film/news/success-of-star-trek-reboot-helps-sequel-blast-off-with-promo-partners-1200483648/. Here are some others as well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124180-J-J-Abrams-Film-Reboot-Influenced-Star-Trek-Online-Expansion and http://mail.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20130806-24463.html and http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/movies-toto/2013/jun/8/review-star-trek-darkness-better-you-think/. This is why WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the evidence you have provided and I do agree with the idea of WP:COMMONNAME, however the point I have been trying to explain is that the films being classed as reboots is a misconception because they are not reboots by definition, they continue the same story as the previous films and series; indeed it is entirely because of those events that the events in the latest two take place. Also it is my understanding that Wikipedia's most important rule is accuracy of fact, so again to call them reboots is inaccurate because they are not, in fact the terms retelling, re-imagining and re-invention are all far more accurate descriptions of the films. --2.220.52.201 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand the point that you are making about how they are not a reboot in the most strict sense; but it is a fine distinction that is lost on most who are not hardcore Star Trek fans. Just because the new films don't check all the boxes of a classic reboot, doesn't mean that they still don't check most of them. That is why both [[WP:COMMONNAME] and WP:Real world apply. I also disagree that the new films continue the same story of any of the previous films. The last film was "Star Trek Nemesis". Are any plot lines from that film continued in the new films? None that I can think of. As was posted above a reboot is defined as, "to restart an entertainment universe that has already been previously established, and begin with a new story line and/or timeline that disregards the original writer’s previously established history, thus making it obsolete and void". Which is exactly what the new films do. They establish a new timeline or 'Alternate Reality' that disregards all the previously established history of the Star Trek films. So the term 'Alternate Reality' refers to the in universe narrative and are not an apt description of the films from a real world perspective. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

201, I get what you're saying, and I'm not opposed to using the phrase alternate timeline series or whatever, but it seems like you're trying to purge the article of all uses of reboot. For example, I think the section header which was changed from "Reboot" to "The J.J. Abrams Films" sounds clumsy now. I prefer "Reboot" and I think we're justified in using that term. As for "accuracy of fact", the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and plenty of reliable sources refer to the new series as a reboot even though Leonard Nemoy is in them. Here's a search engine test using Google News:

search string	approx. hits
star trek "reboot" -wikipedia	5500
star trek "alternate timeline" -wikipedia	50
star trek "alternate reality" -wikipedia	10
star trek "alternate universe" -wikipedia	100

Sources for "reboot" include the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, MTV, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, USA Today, Fox News, etc. Braincricket (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent chart Braincriicket. Thanks for posting. 5500 vs. 160 is a big difference. I would also add that many Star Trek episodes dealt with alternate timelines, universes, realities, etc. Thus, the term 'Alternate Reality' might be confusing to non-hardcore fans. They may think it refers to the episode with the evil Spock with a beard. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify how the plot lines continue from what had previously been depicted - the Nimoy Spock secretly went to the Romulan (Nero from ST'09) homeworld in the two-part 'Unification' Next Generation episode to begin peace talks - hence why he was there - and in Star Trek Nemesis after the villain Shinzon has been defeated Starfleet and the Romulan Empire begin official peace talks legitimising Spock's presence on the planet. This all explains why he's trying to save them in flashback sequences in ST'09. Additionally in 'Into Darkness' the entire exchange between the two Spocks doesn't make much sense unless you've previously watched 'Space Seed' from TOS and 'Wrath of Khan'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.47.66 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but none of that is ever mentioned in the 2009 film. Spock promising to save the planet is part of the plot of the 2009 film only and not a thread that was started in a previous film. Why Spock was on the planet while interesting background for fans, but is irrelevant to the plot of the 2009 film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Would still like for more registered editors to weigh in on this to resolve the issue SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not personally a fan of the term "reboot", but I believe it's reasonable to apply it in this case. We should be focused on the intentions of the makers of the film, not the storyline. Doniago (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I would still like to hear from more registered editors on this. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is to use the "reboot" language, since that is main term used in the media, and from the reliable 3rd-party sources that we source our information. Wikipedia isn't a fan-website, but if there's a reliable, 3rd-party article (not from a fan website) about how fans use the term "alternate reality" instead of "reboot", then I've no problem with that being stated in the article somewhere. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK Based on the comments from registered editors, it seems that everyone is in favor of using the term 'Reboot' as imperfect as it is. I'll start making the appropriate changes. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a question, but isn't reboot means "telling the same story in a new way, to bring the idea back to life"? Sure, they want to bring the franchise back to life and some call it reboot, but as for movies itself it isn't reboot. Story start at distant future in "old universe/franchise" with Leonard Nimoy and then moves to "new changed reality", it can't be a reboot for a movie, if actor from old movie goes to new one and represent a role from , again, old one! I agree that these movies is a reboot for entire franchise, but when we talk about movies itself using reboot is completely wrong as it may confuse readers. And there is nothing to do with fans and wikias, this is wikipedia, and we have to use terms here correctly! So i suggest to use "reboot" only when talk about entire franchise, but for movies itself - "Alternate reality"/"Changed reality" or something else (new discussion)! Vilnisr ^{T | C} 16:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the 2009 film doesn't start in the "old universe/franchise" with Leonard Nimoy. It starts aboard Kirk's father's ship in the 23rd century. Nimoy is not seen until much later in the film and his backstory is told in flashback. Second, the term 'Alternate Reality' has not been removed from the body of any article. The term remains because it is an accurate way to describe the events within the new films. 'Reboot' is only used as subheaders and in charts and templates to distingish the new films from 'The Original Series', 'The Next Generation' etc. Finally, since 'Alternate Reality' is an in-universe, narrative description that could apply to numerous Star Trek stories and it has been shown that most mainstream soucres use 'Reboot' to describe the new films; it would be far more confusing for readers to use the term 'Alternate Reality' than 'Reboot'. Hope that answers your questions. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the most what you have said, just will say, i have said "story start" not "film start" in the "old universe/franchise", but i don't want to argue much about that. As long as 'Alternate Reality' remains in articles it's ok, as about templates, i agree that 'Alternate Reality' can be confusing, i just don't really like 'reboot' as it can confuse as well and don't describe content very well, so maybe it's good idea to think about another alternative, like 'changed reality' or something else that better describe the content. Vilnisr (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I misunderstood. I agree that 'Reboot' is not a perfect term. However, using 'The Orginal Series' or 'The Animated Series' really don't describe the content either. 'Changed Reality' can describe several other Star Trek stories, that can lead to more confusion than using 'Reboot' which is used by most sources so WP:COMMONNAME applies. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

SonOfThornhill please go away! I seriously want to shove your commonname misuse down your throat! All you have ever done on Wikipedia is start and cause unnecessary arguments! And YES Original Series and Animated Series DO describe the content accurately; they are the series of episodes that were **originally produced** and the series of episodes that are **animated**!! And NO the new films are NOT REBOOTS, not by any definition of the word. You need to stay away from subjects you just simply don't understand and just leave wikipedia alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.47.66 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that you disagree. But 'The Original Series' and 'The Animated Series' as well as 'The Next Generation' do not in any way describe the narrative content of those series. It has been shown that most mainstream sources refer to the new films as a 'Reboot' while that is not a perfect term,WP:COMMONNAME does apply. Finally, I would suggest that you review WP:CIVIL. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

in my opinion this should be splited into "real Star Trek", or "old Star Trek" or "legacy Star Trek" and the new Version of Jar Jar Abrams. The inconsistency will be getting worse and worse.5.147.168.4 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:NPOV then. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek article name

Should this article be renamed Star Trek (franchise) in line with other similar articles.REVUpminster (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is intrinsically linked to the discussion at Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series. After all, there is no need for unnecessary disambiguation - the only three possible uses of the Star Trek namespace would be The Original Series, the franchise or the 2009 film. I can't see the possibility of the argument that the 2009 film outweighs either of the other, so the considering is whether this should be used for the franchise or the first series. Miyagawa (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

In heading Cultural impact it is stated that Plato's Stepchildren features the fist scripted interracial kiss. It should be specified that this was The first scripted interracial kiss between an African American and a Caucasian. Other interracial kisses had been scripted and aired between Caucasians and latinos or those of hispanic decent, and of Asian decent. Danjgrau (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Yahoo Answers is not a reliable source. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I will attempt to find more reliable sources.--Danjgrau (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fictional technology categories Star Trek or specific episodes should be listed under.

This is not yet a category and I think the first example that comes to most peoples minds would be Star Trek. I also think episodes that deal with Romulan cloaking device should either be invisibility in fiction or cloaking devices in fiction, depending on whether or not the light is actually being bent around or passing completely through an object. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Given your editing history I'm not inclined to support any positions you might take regarding categories. Sorry. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

I wish to add an entry under parodies about the IRS training video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exp6QNEamCE) and subsequent complaints.

Myrce (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Has a reliable source taken note of the video? Parodies should have independent sourcing as a means of establishing that they are significant in some manner; otherwise there could be hundreds of parodies listed. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is still locked i wanted to change the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception_and_home_media_release but i cannot edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)