Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

TAS and Cannon

The main page states that TAS is considerd non-cannon. TAS has been under review for cannon <http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/store/news/article/35135.html</ref> As well as there have been parts of TAS which where picked up by other series making them atleast semi-cannon. It should probobly at the very least be noted that the cannon status is under review.

FLJuJitsu 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The animated series article states that TAS is now canon. Is it time to change the guidelines to match? Powers ^T 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link reflecting Viacom's? CBS'? decision on this? Insofar as WikiProject guidelines are concerned -- or, at least, actual practice -- I don't see too many articles caught up in canon/non-canon -- definitions of canon are non-NPOV, and canon seems not to be a criteria for inclusion/exclusion in our articles. (More, it's about significance within and outside the franchise.) --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that people and places mentioned or seen in TAS appear to be treated as at least semi-canon by the writers, although the specific storylines shown are probably less so. Anyway, the link used in the TAS article is [1], where the official Star Trek site announces that they're adding TAS items to their library/database. The official site now treats characters like M'Ress and Robert April on par with any other canon character. Powers ^T 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Then clearly an addendum should be added to Star trek canon noting this. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That Startrek.com article doesn't say TAS is part of the owners' notion of canon (only an expansion of their site's coverage) -- but, again, canon is a moot point insofar as Wikipedia's coverage is concerned. --EEMIV (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. What is and isn't canon is very important for Wikipedia pages. Lots42 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whose idea of canon? Roddenberry said, if it appears on screen, it's canon -- except for Star Trek V, which he called apocryphal. Paramount says everything on TV and screen is canon -- except TAS. Some rabid fans say nothing post TMP is canon because Roddenberry wasn't especially involved. And no one rectifies where what appears on screen conflict. Definitions of canon are inherently non-npov; if information is verifiable and significant to the understanding of the character, then it's worth including. Now, as a result of Paramount's policy, not much credence is leant by writers and producers to the books and comics and TAS -- so that material tends to be excluded on the basis of trivia, not canon. Per our own project guidelines, canon status influences the prominence of information, but isn't an inclusion/exclusion criterion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. Before "canon", all of these are fiction. Getting totally anal about the continuity within a series of fictional works is a pastime for the fanboy crowd, but hardly something for the editors of an encyclopaedia to be overly concerned with. I only mention this because there seems to be a disproportionate amount of discussion concerning "canon". Wikipedia is not a fansite. Kid Bugs (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Voyager

This has been going on for a LOOOOONG time. Deadlock (Star Trek: Voyager), Harry Kim, and Naomi Wildman. Someone or someones keep insisting on chang the text to say that Harry and Naomi are the only original survivors of the original Voyager and that everyone else died and the characters we know from them on are the duplicates. This is untrue. The original Harry and Naomi died. I believe part of this confusing is based on which Voyager destroyed itself to save the others. The damaged Voyager is the original one and it survived while the (mostly) undamaged Voyager is the duplicate and it did not survive. So in conclusion, I'm asking for help in maintaining the three pages to reflect reality. As real as fiction is. Lots42 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine maintaining clear text explaining that they are duplicates -- but, really, this detail is inconsequential trivia. If it avoids edit warring and makes for clearer prose, this little detail might just be better off excised from the articles. --EEMIV (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EEMIV. As a side note, the article in the version I viewed for the episode suggests the original ship is destroyed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it's many, many months later but I must disagree on the idea of 'inconsequential triva'. If the characters and or episode are important enough to have an article, the fact of the duplication and deaths are very important to said articles. Lots42 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering there's no follow-up to these deaths/destruction in subsequent episodes, it is trivial. Anyhow, the phrasing currently in the articles seems appropriate, without giving undue weight to an event that, while significant in-universe to the characters, is inconsequential to the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was follow up, at least regarding Kim. And even if there wasn't, I'd still argue that the events should be kept in. Because it is signifigant in-universe to the characters. Dying and being replaced by a duplicate is signifigant to the 'Fictional history' section. Lots42 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The timeline of the two versions of the characters only diverged within a single episode. That makes it trivial IMHO. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at Rick Berman

I'm not technically part of this WikiProject but I thought I'd bring this here before someone brings it to ANI. There appears to be an ongoing edit war at Rick Berman over a lengthy criticism section that overshadows all other relevant info about him. Any help anyone could provide would be great. Thanks. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some editing at it, and agree it's lopsided. Additional eyes and VISORs would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is in better shape vis-a-vis NPOV and BLP concerns, but there are still some content gaps. --EEMIV (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

I am growing a little concerned over some of the sources being offered at Star Trek fan productions. Most of the ones being used are from the website for the project or for from the production company making the film. One such grouping, Star Trek Phoenix had naught but the aforementioned fansite and production company info and a link to the make-up artist (who doesn't appear to have an article in the wiki). This sort of crap sourcing seems disingenuous in that it creates the illusion that the bit is well-sourced when it in all actuality doesn't really meet our RS policy for inclusion. I've removed it once, but I'd like to get some input from the WikiProject before continuing, Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For a topic such as fan productions, I would expect that there should be reliable secondary sourcing to prove that the productions are worth mentioning in the first place. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Versions

I can't find any discussion of the various versions available for some of the episodes. Specifically, I saw the original broadcast in North America and now have a version with Chinese/Japanese subtitles on DVD. There are several notable differences that I'm certain I remember from the original, for example

1. when the water-life refers to humans as "bags of mostly water", in the original I saw it was Troi who exclaimed, "that's us!". In the DVD version I have, it is Data who replies with a pedantic and much more lengthy similar comment.

Did the original feature sex between Data and Yar as my DVD version does? I don't remember it, and am fairly sure I would have.

These are consistent with there being separate North American and European versions - Data's comments are much more translatable than Troi's colloquial comment, for example, and Noth Americans have far more hangups about sex than Europeans do.

If someone has access to both versions, these differences would make interesting reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.155.242 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Warp nacelles as Bussard ramscoops

Bussard_ramjet#In_fiction says:

In the Star Trek fictional universe vessels commonly have magnetic hydrogen collectors, referred to as Bussard collectors or Bussard ramscoops. Those are seemingly fitted on the forward end of the twin "warp nacelles", and have a "reverse" function that allows for spreading hydrogen as well as sucking it in. Starfleet (and presumably similar alien allied vessels) therefore can operate in multiple modes, utilising matter-antimatter total conversion for interstellar flight, and utilising the ramscoop effect while moving at respectable sublight speeds to replenish matter-based fuel reserves. This capability is intended to be used only in emergencies, however. These ships also have diverse application of mass converted to energy (e.g. transporters, replicators, etc.) and therefore monatomic hydrogen and helium provide a ready source of clean nucleons for these purposes.

• 1) Has no cites -- is this canon?
• 2) Can anyone direct me to any articles that we have on Starfleet ship technology? -- I haven't found any yet.

Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed almost all the text as blatant original research. I suggest looking through Memory Alpha for information on technology and minutiae. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Star Trek Encyclopedia's entry for "Bussard collectors": The concept of eletromagnetic ramscoops being used to gather fuel for an interstellar vehicle was proposed in 1960 by physicist Robert W. Bussard, after whom the device is named. There's a brief description of the actual fictional device, which basically collects hydrogen and other interstellar gasses for fuel, raw material, etc. I image you'd find much the same in the italicized real-world footnotes of the Star Trek: TNG encyclopedia. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Just to clarify: "the actual fictional device" (Bussard ramjet) is a real-world proposed device, which might possibly actually be used some day. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scientists are planning on building a bussard collector sometime in the near future in hopes of studying exoplanets and stars far away as well as seeing if they could put people on these things so as to colonize (this is probably just in the scientists heads btw) other habitual planets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.26.199 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Dunno if it belongs in that article, or exactly how canon it is, but the TNG Tech Manual *does* say those red things at the front of the Enteprise-D's warp nacelles are indeed Bussard ramscoops (and mentions the episode where they put them in reverse). Umm... *flips through his copy* Yeah, pp 70-71, with the in-universe details, and p. 71 includes the authors' note on their use in, ah, TWO episodes to "backflush" hydrogen from the scoops. umrguy42 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hodgepodge

Hiya. {{Startrek2}} and {{Star Trek}} have the potential to be redundant -- but, both have big gaps in what they link, with some random inclusions and some random exclusions. What does the footer include links to Memory Alpha and Star Trek: The Music but not to the list/cats for characters, races, etc? What does the sidebar have links to wars but not to books and games? Why do both skip over the category/list of ships? Heck, neither links to Starship Enterprise. Anyhow, yes, WP:SOFIXIT -- and I'd like to, and might start whacking at it right after I post this, but thought I'd start a conversation here (rather than spread across both templates' talk pages) about whether it's best to move toward using the footer or the sidebar, and to solicit help with organization and clean-up. I'm inclined to go for the footer, since sidebars have the potential to clutter images and "edit" links; that's where I'm going to put my focus. --EEMIV (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that footers are a lot neater and fold away nicely when not needed. They don't foul the main content of the article either. Alastairward (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with footers. The long-ass sidebars are just distracting from subject text and mess up formatting. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The footer navbox has been hopped up a bit the last coupla days. It doesn't include direct links to all the in-universe lists/categories, but I think the footer is thorough enough that we can start axing the vertical side-bar from the articles. --EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion here. Aatrek (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, unless there's other objections, I'm going to swap out the old template for the footer. Aatrek (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dual picture for infobox

I think that, with the restart of the franchise via the film, we need to create a side-by-side image of the main characters (ie, a side-by-side image of Shatner/Pine or Nimoy/Quinto, etc) for the infoboxes for that character. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We're still bound by WP:NFCC which specifies minimal usage. Currently, the 1960s actors are still the culturally recognized players, not the reboot chaps... unless that changes or these plenty of good critical commentary on appearance, there's little defensible reason to go smacking more pictures in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand the criteria of NFCC (which is amazing, considering how often the definition of such morphs with each person discussing it), but a side by side already exists in the Kirk article, and would be pretty easy to duplicate in the other articles. Seeing as the articles are about the fictional characters being represented by real life actors, I think it would be appropriate to note the portrayals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We're talking almost a hundred hours of appearances for the original actor, versus two hours for the new actors. Putting the new actors in the infobox would be undue weight, I think. Powers ^T 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Recently, we had a bit of kerfuffle over the usage of fan-series, wherein McCoy was portrayed by John Kelley, for more episodes than Urban. Clearly, using that argument is not going to pass muster. The fact of the matter is, De Kelley is dead, and Urban has been cast in the role of the character, and appears in the film as the fictional character. We have pretty solid references for this, and therefore, it would seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia to reflect that De Kelley is not the only man who portrayed the character. Using only Kelley's image implies that the character is only that person. This same argument applies to all of the characters recast in the 2009 film. For better or worse, Shatner is no longer Kirk and Nimoy - for the most part - is no longer Spock. I don't see the undue weight argument as being pertinent here- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you add a multiplier for promotions, critical third-party coverage and viewer eyeballs across hours, Urban probably trumps the fan shows :-). Of those, however, it's the third-party commentary that really matters -- and, as User:David Fuchs pointed out, specifically, appearance. The collage we amalgamated for Kirk is great and all, but its WP:FUR is weak, given the article itself doesn't include any discussion of changes in appearance. Lacking that, I doubt it would hold up at IfD. The culturally-relevant (even prevalent) images/icons of the original crew are a good starting point, but images beyond that seem to be more about being exhaustive in coverage, but without meeting all the points of WP:NFCC. Put another way: we could probably remove every single image from all the character articles without at all affecting our understanding of the topic (except, maybe, for Chekov, because of references to his Monkees-esque hairpiece) -- we should address base NFCC/FUR issues (and corresponding article content) before looking to add even more images to these articles. --EEMIV (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fan film portrayals in the infobox are out. Consensus over whether Cawley & company belong in the infobox was debated and the answer was a resounding "no." Including his picture there is no different than listing him under "portrayed by" portion of the infobox. Furthermore, the format for split pictures would look awful and I think it's completely unnecessary. Kirk's Shatner is the iconic Kirk. The infobox picture should be of the original actor that played and popularized the character. Erikeltic (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Erikeltic's very limited experience aside, the argument about fan film portrayals was being used to express the holes in a previously made argument; please try to keep up, E. Maybe take a moment and read the reasons why your personal viewpoint of Kirk as the only one for the infobox is flawed. DIscussions actually entail reading what the people before you have said, and then responding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested that Cawley should be included in Talk:James_T._Kirk. It was that suggestion to which I was replying. Perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on your personal viewpoint as to why you continue to push the fan film inclusion agenda. Now to the point at hand: I am against including any of the new cast in split pictures in the infobox because the original interpretation of the characters (played by the original actors) is the reason behind the character's Wiki altogether. If this movie was the first and only Star Trek reference to Kirk & Company, I highly doubt that there would be character bios being constructed for the new actors. The only reason why it's even up for discussion is because the characters have been well-established for many years. The original cast and the original interpretation is the cultural reference that is chiefly relevant here. Furthermore, the article "James Kirk" focuses mostly on his time as Captain of the Enterprise. Chris Pine is playing a character that will become that James Kirk, which Shatner played in his prime. So since what should be mostly of concern is Captain Kirk and not Cadet Kirk, Shatner should be given weight over Pine. This is clearly obvious--so much so that the movie will feature Leonard Nimoy as "old" Spock. Nimoy is actually credited in the film as Spock Prime, so pictures of the new actors should be irrelevant since the articles are [again] primarily about the character in their prime. Erikeltic (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, your previous comment is the exact kind of antagonistic tone that has derailed and enflamed previous discussions between you and Erikeltic about these articles. You asked the question, and have his answer -- considering your and Erikeltic's ability to change each other's mind is about zero, I'd suggest that in this and in future cases, you opt instead not to respond to his answers at all (and vice versa, Erikeltic, if you ever drop a poll on one of these talk pages and Arcayne offers an answer/opinion with which you don't agree). Erikeltic, I know there's a history of frustration between you too, but you didn't need to throw back the whole "try to keep up" piece. Discussion is great, but I'd ask that you two disengage having said your respective pieces. --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

EEIMIV, you are absolutely right; I was wrong. Erikeltic, please accept my sincere apology. I should not have snapped at you. Just because you have acted poorly on prior occasions doesn't mean I should immediately treat you as if you are going to be antagonistic at every contact. Again, I offer my apologies.

Refocusing my response, I would address that the articles are about the fictional characters of Kirk and crew, not Shatner and cast. I agree that the characters have been developed by their initial portrayers, but as far as that goes, this is an encyclopedia - if someone officially subsumes the role, then the article must take a divergent tone with respect to these subsequent portrayals. This allows us to avoid the fanish tone of Kirk vs. Pine and all that silly nonsense that tends to be more often in a fan forum. And please understand that listing Nimoy before Quinto in the credits (if that is indeed what is occurring - I won't see the movie until next week) as a function of Hollywood, not just the portrayal. The articles about the Star Trek characters are about the entire life of the character, and the argument could easily be made about how the article is simply not about the character only in their prime. The Lost Years provides a lot of cited insight into Kirk's background that happens offscreen. Wesley Crusher also counters that argument rather pointedly - most of the character's presence occurs during the character's callow youth, and not their "prime". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Fuchs, and more or less with User:LtPowers in terms of cultural presence and critical focus. I disagree with User:Arcayne's suggestion that the new actors'/characters somehow "replace" the others because of the recency of their appearance. The underlying actors' connections to the roles -- professionally, as well as in terms of cultural identity -- sit with the 1960s actors (and 1960s performances, hence the TOS-era images). A split picture is an awkward shift in weight; I say, "Nice idea, but no thanks." --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that they "replace", them, EEMIV - they have assumed the role, and it would seem therefore encyclopedic to reflect that with a split image of the two official portrayals (as opposed to replacing the old image with the new) . An encyclopedia is not in the business of pandering to sentimentality. Yes, Shatner's performance was endearing (and often amusing), but we aren't talking about - to use one example - Shatner; we are talking about a fictional character called James T. Kirk. Shatner is not Kirk, just as Kirk is not Shatner. I think that looking at this more neutrally will benefit the encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And Shatner's portrayal of Kirk is the one that is most culturally relevant- the one that Belushi and Carrey have lampooned, the trademark style. It's not pandering to sentimentality, it's just that as bound by NFCC the Shatner image is more important to the article as a whole. There are mounds of information about Shatner's Kirk that dwarf the (also substantial) stuff about Pine. In the future that may change; as it is, there's no evidence that the new Kirk has overtaken the old Kirk in terms of cultural impact. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, determinations of cultural impact are always going to be subjective assessments, which is why I suggest we find another measuring stick. I am willing to shelve this for the time being, but before we do so, we need to determine under what conditions we an equal viewing of both characters becomes more logical. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When there is a consensus to do so. Powers ^T 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you suggesting that we need to find a consensus to find another measuring stick, since determinations of cultural impact are always going to be subjective assessments. Coz, frankly, that would appear to be a no-brainer; its far too subjective now. Can you point out any current yardstick for determining such?

'Coz I know you weren't just answering part of my post.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, consensus is the measuring stick. Powers ^T 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. That isn't good enough. Cultural impact is not and should not be seen as subjective. We should probably arrive at a consensus as to what is going to serve a sufficient cultural impact for equal footing of Shatner and Pine's official portrayals - unless you are of the opinion that they cannot be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I note that Alec Guiness gets precedence over Ewan MacGregor in the Obi-Wan Kenobi article. If we follow a similar precedent, I'd say it'd have to wait at least until Pine's appeared in 70 episodes, seven films, and a DirecTV commercial as Kirk, and maybe not even then. Powers ^T 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But also note the split images at Doctor (Doctor Who) and Master (Doctor Who). Ausir (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The "metric" for cultural significance stems from what third-party sources say about the topic. When multiple third-party sources start trending toward assertions like, "Hey, Pine as Kirk is as big a deal as Shatner as Kirk," then we shift our coverage appropriately. The overwhelming quantity of academic, reliable material out there focuses on either Shatner as Kirk or, as much as possible, some abstract idea of "Kirk"ness; outside movie reviews, Pine isn't up there. When/if he is, then, again, we shift the weight and focus of our coverage accordingly. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for, EEMIV, not some 'here, go play with something shiny, since its never going to be', which is what Powers essentially offered. I had pretty much considered that as the point of view of some folk, but I asked so as to have them tell me themselves. Two answers in one. Yay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek games

A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) Articles

SPOILERS BELOW STOP READING AFTER THIS:

The 2009 film takes place in an alternate universe and just like the mirror universe articles, material relating to this movie (and rumored equals) should be treated just like the mirror universe (since it too, the 2009 film is on an alternate timeline) Anything after 2233 in the 2009 film's universe is completely different and should be treated as so.

So I propose with James T. Kirk as an example for a the different film universe: James T. Kirk (2009 film) or James T. Kirk (Alternate universe) or something similar, a reader would be confused to know Kirk's father was alive when he was promoted in the TOS universe (and a different date too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.56.111 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. I think the current James T. Kirk, Spock and McCoy articles perfectly adequately address the 2009 film (at least structurally). --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a specific citation explicitly stating that this takes place in an "alternate universe"? If not, any assessment of such would constitute taking the "old" Trek and the "newer" Trek and promoting the argument that this is an alternative universe. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's included in the three articles I mentioned above. Will expand it to other characters when/if I, or someone else, gets around to them. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EEMIV. Erikeltic (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the single citation of that, or do you have more? What's the hurry? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was agreeing that they should be on one page for now. Erikeltic (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't actally talking to you. Pardon me for not being specific. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one I just saw, from the writers: [2] The idea that this is a parallel universe, not exclusive of the established series and characters, has been a big part of the producer's discussion of the film, to avoid pissing off the canon purists. Dialogue in the movie even delves into it, going somewhat meta about the whole thing. --EEMIV (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that particular segment of dialogue was a bit heavy-handed. =) Powers ^T 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'K. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already been done on Memory Alpha. So take that at what its worth. It seems petty to have a mirror universe set of articles but not for the 2009 film. The movie makes so many articles different in its alternate universe. Told ya'll so. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.56.111 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I could only find one mirror universe article, not a whole set. Powers ^T 12:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, what are everyone's thoughts about creating an "Alternate Timeline/ Dimension" section on each of the "historically impacted" characters' wikis? For example, Kirk's wiki shows his place of birth as Riverside, Iowa, but in the "alternate timeline" Kirk was born on a shuttle in space. I think it might be a good idea to segment the new films in each of the bio's to avoid the massive confusion and messy pages the changed history is going to create. Thoughts? Erikeltic (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds interesting. Maybe offer an example from a test article? When you do, post a link here; that would seem the best way to see how effective it would work. For what its worth, I think its a damn fine idea. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put something "light" together first and then everyone can take a swing at the results to see if it'll work. Erikeltic (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erikeltic/sandbox is a work in progress & most of it is a reorganization effort at this point, but I have included some key additions that I hope will help explain the timeline shift. Erikeltic (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of Original Timeline and Alternate Timeline, maybe just header the "new Kirk" section as Star Trek (2009) or 2009 Film since the article should have an out-of-universe perspective (there isn't "really" an alternate timeline). I don't think you need "prime version" in the Shatner paragraph, since except for two hours out of 43 years, Shatner is the "main" version of Kirk, and doesn't need differentiated from Chris Pine (the "alternate timeline" section does that well enough on it's own). -- Aatrek / _^TALK 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think separate sections unnecessarily breaks apart related content, and breaks the sense of continuity between the two character versions. e.g. Kirk: much of the development, Pine's depiction and the critical response are rooted in what Shatner did; breaking those sections apart is quite a "jump" between relevant pieces of information. Furthermore, the new movie is just one movie; it's big and popular, and certainly changes things in-universe -- but, I think its recency is clouding the fact that, really, insofar as what makes these characters popular and notable, one new movie, even one that goes way out to left field, is Not That Big a Deal. --EEMIV (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What about including "New Kirk" under the primary section with its own header and combining the production notes under development? Take a look at the sandbox for the changes. Also, I left the pictures in tact so you guys can see the spacing I have on there. Erikeltic (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Spacing is a tertiary concern; Wikipedia policy is quite clear that non-free images cannot be used in user space. Please remove them immediately.

I'm apathetic about a sub-section for the new movie; I suppose with enough content, it's okay. For other tertiary characters, probably not worthwhile. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would only need apply to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, Scotty, Sarek, and Christopher Pike. Any MAYBE the USS Enterprise. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm not so sure there's all that much "alternative timeline" material for e.g. Chekov. All I'm suggesting is that if there're only three-four sentences of simple plot summary, a sub-section head really isn't worth it. It's more clutter and an awkwardly layout than anything else. --EEMIV (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So what's the verdict? Does anyone have any objections to creating a sub-section for the new movie as shown? Erikeltic (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week since I asked if anyone had any objects to the reorganization I put together on my sandbox. I can only assume by everyone's silence that creating the "Alternate Timeline" section is acceptable. If that's not the case, please let me know. Otherwise, I am going to make the changes around 1pm EST. Erikeltic (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

auto archiving

A few days ago, I had added the auto archival code for MiszaBot; however, on the instructions page, it says that "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there.". So I wanted to ask everyone here, if there is an actual need for a bot to archive discussions. Thank You. Gman124 ^talk 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. This talk page doesn't see a ton of traffic -- over a couple of years, just four talk-page archives? I don't really have a point of comparison, but I don't remember ever loading this page thinking, "Gee, it sure is taking a long time for it all to download; wish a bot would come by and remove all the detritus. --EEMIV (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it now. --Gman124 ^talk 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek Season 1 Episodes

A bit of a mess (IMHO), it looks ugly and isn't terribly user friendly. Is there no neater way to link to the list of episodes? Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved here. Aatrek (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Star_Trek

This page is freakishly out-of-date. Is there a template we can put on it indicating, "Hey, folks, we haven't updated this in a while and probably won't any time soon. In the meantime, come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek"? Would it be kosher just to redirect the portal page here? --EEMIV (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest putting the Portal up at WP:MFD; it's kind of improper to have cross-space redirects. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Small world, I actually made some minor cosmetic changes today, including replacing the old, HUGE footer with a color-customized version of {{Star Trek}} called {{Star Trek (portal variant)}}. Aatrek (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the news, tried to sort some coding on the DYK section and added a new featured race. There's something up with the coding on the Monthly Featured article that's preventing me from updating the article, anyone any good with the code? Alastairward (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I got it to work; you didn't include "May 2009" in the link. Aatrek (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

D'oh, thank you! Alastairward (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about "The Cage"

A couple of articles refer to "The Cage". Per the MOS, most of them give a year after -- 1964 or 65 (there's some variation). Catch is, "The Cage" didn't air in its entirety until much later, although it was assembled, edited, and presented to NBC in the mid-60s. I'm just double-checking that its appropriate to identify e.g. the Enterprise's first appearance as "The Cage" -- certainly it "appeared" in 1964/65 (filming ended '64; it was rejected officially in '65). Or is it more appropriate to cite "Where No Man Has Gone Before", the first *widely seen* appearance? Thoughts? --EEMIV (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "The Cage" was the first appearance, although it was to a very limited audience. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi everybody, I've revamped most of the existing templates into standard formatting, styles, and categories. Thoughts? Aatrek (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

A whole bunch of pages link (and redirect!) to List of Star Trek planets, which is a ridiculous excuse for a page. Any thoughts on what do do here? Aatrek (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Go through the pages one-by-one and fix the links and redirects? Powers ^T 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was hoping for something simpler. I guess I'll add it to the list! Aatrek (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Super Star Trek

Super Star Trek has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts allow the project to see when articles are up for deletion, nomination, review etc. It might be a good time to remind everyone. Alastairward (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That only works if they're properly tagged. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They all appeared for me through the article alerts. Alastairward (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion at Riverside

Riverside, Iowa keeps having random people say that Kirk's birth, long-established at Riverside, has been proven wrong by this new movie. Not being familiar with Star Trek, I've reverted because new movies don't generally override what's long been held. Is this an exception? I'll continue reverting this claim as long as it's in its present format, unless discussion here holds that the IPs' opinion is correct. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The new movie creates an "alternate, parallel" timeline; it does not trump or erase the events depicted in the original series and subsequent films/spin-offs. Riverside continues to claim Kirk as its future son (see trekfest.com, scheduled for June 2009). It would be appropriate to list this event, or its connection to Kirk, but more clearly framed in terms of "the version of Kirk portrayed by Shatner in the original series" (but less awkwardly). --EEMIV (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk was born after the incursion by Nero's ship and the subsequent timeline split. We do not know if Kirk was born on board the Kelvin in the original timeline or not, so Riverside's claim is not wholly invalidated. Powers ^T 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, his mother was pretty much in labor as Nero's ship emerged from the black hole, so it appears he would have been born on the Kelvin anyway. He still grew up in Iowa. If I was born on a cruise ship and then was taken to L.A. as a child, I'd still say I was from California. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek games

a whole raft of Star Trek games have shown up at AfD. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

These will all be listed through the recent changes to the project articles or the article alerts. Alastairward (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: The Original Series Episodes

I'm working to finalize my fairly major overhaul of List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, and I could use some help rewriting the episode summaries to something a bit more descriptive then "Captain Kirk finds a strange alien on a distant planet." I've finished the first season, and if anyone wants to pitch in on seasons two and three, I'd be appreciative. (This part takes forever!) Once the summaries are done, I plan to nominate the page as a Featured List, so any other insights would be helpful, too. Thanks! -- Aatrek / _^TALK 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Brand new WP:TREK page

Hey everybody, what do you think of my renovated WP:TREK design? -- Aatrek / _^TALK 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks just dandy to me! I commend you for your design expertise. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly better than what was there :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have one quibble; since we're practically such a small wikiproject, could we have all the discussion pages for the templates, et al just funnel to this page instead, so no one's comments are lost or ignored? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the strange code-looking bits of text be showing up before each of the section subtitles, such as "?UNIQ2305f9105e089e4-h-0--QINU? Title Guidelines"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't there before... lol :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think so either, but I'm not the most observant. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is, but I think it's an issue with the transclusion of template content. I'll try find a way to correct it tomorrow. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got it fixed now. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 13:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's fixed for me on my end. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Trek ref in David Brin's "Earth"

One of the characters works for a company that's processing the entire Trek canon for 3D. I forget how many episodes and movies he predicted at the time -- anybody got a copy? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reassessing article importance

As I find myself browsing through more and more Trek articles, I find that there seems to be no consistent reasoning behind the importance ratings of many articles. That being said, I've come up with this proposed "importance guide" for different types of Trek pages.

Importance	Article type	Example
Top	Primary characters	James T. Kirk
	Primary actors	Leonard Nimoy
	Primary production staff	Rick Berman
	Primary franchise article	Star Trek
	Primary series articles	Star Trek: Enterprise
	Primary film articles	Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
High	List of films	List of Star Trek films
	Lists of episodes	List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes
	Individual character articles	Elim Garak
	Primary ships/stations	USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
	Major alien races	Klingons
Mid	Individual episodes	Yesterday's Enterprise
	Lists of characters	List of Star Trek: Enterprise characters
	Techonology	Holodeck
	Phase II	Star Trek: Phase II
Low	Novels and publications	The Star Trek Encyclopedia
	Terminology	Red Alert
	Print production staff	Dayton Ward
	Behind-the-scenes	Star Trek composers
	Fan productions	Star Trek: Of Gods and Men
	Games	Star Trek: Elite Force
	Guest stars	Roger C. Carmel
	Other lists	List of Star Trek' planets
NA	Templates	Template:Star Trek ENT
	Categories	Category:Star Trek templates
	Disambiguation	Star Trek (disambiguation)
	Image/File	File:Enterprise_NX-01.jpg
	Redirect	Talk:Starfleet Security
	Portal	Portal:Star Trek
	WP:TREK pages	Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek

Any thoughts? I think I've covered just about everything, but you know I'm always looking for input. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm verily in support of such standardization, however I think we should make allowances for some discrepancy allowances from this (or another) standard for special cases, so long as the editor has made such a case on the given article's talk page. As for this specific setup, I like it, but think some of the descriptors should be elabourated upon. Who constitutes the "Primary Actors"; those noted in a series' opening credits or what? (Rosalind Chao comes to my mind immediately) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If we stay standard by Template:Star Trek TOS (for example), primary actors = opening credits. (In the case of TOS, this includes Christine Chapel and Janice Rand). The other series templates follow the same pattern, where "primary cast" is the traditional opening credits cast. Template talk: Star Trek recurring characters has covered all the other ground in what a recurring character is for Trek. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

TOS reviews

For the sake of completion and to cement notability, I found some reviews we could add to the TOS articles from the A.V. Club (The Man Trap, Charlie X and The Naked Time for example). It seems to be a fairly reliable source to use, a reviewer did a run through the Original Series in time for the new film. Alastairward (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Earth governments (Star Trek)

Just to let editors here know that I've nominated Earth governments (Star Trek) for deletion. If editors want to get involved in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth governments (Star Trek). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Pike

We'd like to have a Third Opinion at List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series, involving Christopher Pike. See the talk page (Talk:List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Original Series#Christopher Pike) for more details. There is a content dispute on whether Pike is a recurring character or not in TOS, thus deserving to be listed on the list, as he does not appear on the TOS template, he is not a "major character".

76.66.203.200 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that he has a main article all to himself, why not just link there rather than duplicate material. Would you come to Wikipedia looking for the character article itself or a list of minor characters? Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the rest of Wikipedia is structured this way? WP:SUMMARY and empty sections. Empty sections are not supposed to exist, because they are bad style. So we have {{sync}} to go with {{main}} so that summaries appear as very short descriptions of what appears in the full article, so that there are no empty sections. You can {{sync}} summaries that are out of date (which will never occur in this case, since TOS is out of production and will not return) and the {{main}} is used as a pointer to the main article.

The text I added to the article is not a complete duplicate it is a very short summary (four sentences). 76.66.193.20 (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was a "complete duplicate", so that's that argument over and done with. Reading the page on WP:SUMMARY, I see nothing to support your argument.

Besides which, the third opinion you requested has been given on the article page itself, consensus seems to be gathering that the entire article itself is redundant. Perhaps you might actually read that before adding again the duplicated material. Alastairward (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied here, because you replied here. As for the article itself being redundant, I had that thought when I first laid eyes on it. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek novel/book in Virtuality

While taking screencaps of books seen in Ronald D. Moore's Virtuality, I stumbled upon what seems very much like a Star Trek: The Original Series novel: Picture 1 and Picture 2. If you are wondering, it is the leftmost book behind Pike's head with the yellow and red letters. The distinguishing features I've noticed were the Pocket Books symbol on the spine and what looks like the original Enterprise on the back of the book.

Does anyone know what book/novel this is?--DrWho42 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a gold and red one that seems to be the Captain's Table compendium in the second photo. Skinny87 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

B'Elanna Torres

There is a edit war going on at B'Elanna Torres. We should intervene... --RayYung (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Genesis (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Just gave it a bit of a re-vamp, hopefully start class now. SGGH ^ping! 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of Star Trek?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of TAS episodes

Much as I love that series, I can't see much scope for expansion of many of the episodes. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of notability to support individual article save Yesteryear (if we can source something about the quasi-canonicity) and The Slaver Weapon (possibly, perhaps not, how much notability can you get out of the Larry Niven link?).

They could be easily merged to a table of episodes, with a column for writer, production order etc. Any thoughts? Alastairward (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Really we'd probably be better off making all Star Trek episodes just an entry on a list or season and then spinning out the notable ones we can make a decent article out of (like WikiProject StarGate did.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Star Trek episodes generally have multiple available reviews, which would normally be indicative of sufficient individual notability to sustain full articles. But of course, someone has to write them first... Powers ^T 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven of Nine, Annika Hansen, issues on Star Trek:Voyager

I would like to request some input from users here. There is a debate going on the talk page of Star Trek: Voyager of the spelling of Seven's human name, Annika Hansen. I have cited sources memoryalpha, startrek.com, Star Trek voyager closed captioning, Star Trek novels, Star Trek encyclopedia, and Wikipedia itself, but the debate pursues. Individuals insist these sources aren't reliable and the spelling is actually Onica. Can someone weigh in please other than myself. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the character's talk page, the official website for the franchise seems to me to be sufficient citation. Alastairward (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the ST Encyclopedia as Annika. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where in the world does "Onica" come from? I've never seen it spelled that way. Powers ^T 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Plato's Stepchildren story "based on" claim

In the popular culture section of the Psychokinesis article, an editor, in good faith I believe, has added a sourced line that the episode Plato's Stepchildren by the late Meyer Dolinsky was based on a 1952 short story called Telek by Jack Vance, an author who is still alive. The only source for the claim thus far is a 1994 book: The Ultimate Unauthorized Star Trek Quiz Book (note the "unauthorized"). My contention is that this book source, being unofficial, is of insufficient quality to propose possible plagiarism against the writer of the episode on Wikipedia, even if reworded to a generous "loosely based on" (see the Telek article) or "inspired by" level. Dolinsky is no longer here to defend himself. This seems like an instance of negative biographical material on another page that qualifies for quick removal under WP:BOLP. I am seeking input on the Talk:Psychokinesis page from any Trek experts who would like to comment. Feel free to remove the material in question. 5Q5 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a poor source. If challenged, it should be removed until a source that meets reliability criteria can be found (fact books and other such pulp press-type info should be handled with care.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd already removed the claim from the Plato's Stepchildren article, it had another dubious source to support it. I noticed the use of the Quiz Book on another article but didn't get around to removing it myself. I support it's removal. Alastairward (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, for now. I moved the claim from the psychokinesis article to its talk page where I added the following box. 5Q5 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Small issue, lead paragraphs in TOS episode articles

Perhaps I'm being overly fussy (and I still have to tabulate the TAS episodes as I promised above) but would there be any agreement with removing the episode/production number from the lead paragraphs of our TOS episode articles. It just seems out of place and is already carried in the episode info box. Any thoughts? Alastairward (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The production numbers can probably go from the lede. As for the episode number, the ordinal describing the episode's place in the series or season is pretty standard though, if that's to what you're referring. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I could go for keeping the latter. Alastairward (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Trek73

I have renominated this article for deletion. It lacks notability through references and the last AfD didn't seem to be above board, with editors who asked for it to be merged rather than deleted quickly unmerging it once the AfD was closed. Alastairward (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Individual episodes

The vast majority of articles about individual Star Trek episodes don't cite any independent, reliable sources to establish notability. This is because there aren't any independent, reliable sources about the episodes. Therefore, the vast majority of articles about individual Star Trek episodes are non-notable. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are several episode guides published by Paramount and related companies that would be reliable, as well as DVD commentary tracks and 'insider' books and autobiographies/biographies. Shatner, for example, has a fair bit to say about the original Star Trek episodes in his first autobiography. Skinny87 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Are many of the episode articles horrible? Absolutely. Are some of them non-notable, better relegated to List of X entries? Probably. But are many of them the subject of significant commentary & criticism, with a bevy of production and real-world information available? Yeppers. --EEMIV (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a hell of a lot of critical analysis (Star Trek: The Human Frontier, Religions of Star Trek, Star Trek and Philosophy, etc.) I've just got way too much to do besides. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Luc, please see above for an example of independent critical reviews. Alastairward (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87, none of the sources you cited are independent, so they can't be used to establish notability.

David Fuchs, those sources don't go in-depth enough into most individual episodes to be considered a source specifically for the notability of that episode.

I'm not saying that none of the articles about episodes are notable, because some of the episodes are obviously notable. However, many of them are non-notable because there aren't any reliable, external sources. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific examples of such episodes? Why not compare with the South Park featured episode drive and see if we can do something similar? Alastairward (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how, if DVD commentaries can be used for other Featured Articles and Good Articles, they can't be good enough for Star Trek episodes. Or why production guides can't be, as I fail to see why they aren't independent of the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DVD commentaries can be used to provide additional information, but they can't be used as the only sources or to establish notability, since they aren't external. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience I have only seen maybe 2 Featured Articles that didn't meet notability criteria (and those 2 are no longer FAs.) Chances are the amount of content it takes to make a bare-minimum FA also proves notability. Speaking of improving episodes, "Yesterday's Enterprise" really only needs a paragraph or two more information to its reception, some copyediting and shuffling of content and it's good for GA at least.

The question ultimately comes down to who's going to do the work. I prefer to keep focusing on the Star Trek films (4 down, 7 to go) to create a 12-article featured topic, and that's going to take me at least another year, probably longer. If someone were to go ahead and merge all the episodes into a "List of" or "Season X" format and then just spin out the ones people are working on (a la what the Stargate folks did), I'm all for it. But it's a hell of a lot of episodes to move or deal with one way or another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New GAR opened

As part of the ongoing GA Sweeps effort, I've put Star Trek canon on hold due to sourcing issues. If someone has extra time to help out, really all it needs is some rephrasing and additional sourcing. THe GAR is at Talk:Star Trek canon/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi there, I was wondering if you wanted to include this barnstar in your Wikiproject?

{{subst:WPTREK Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Regards, SGGH ^ping! 08:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bad looking, I'd found something along the lines of the Enterprise's pennant incorporated into the Star, but this looks a lot nicer. Alastairward (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Star Trek Barnstar
		This was the other one. Alastairward (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The first one is technically and thematically way cooler in my mind :) Only problem is I'm pretty sure the IDIC symbol is still copyrighted (after all Roddenberry introduced it as a marketing gimmick in the first place.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a cool one as well. SGGH ^ping! 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding Star Trek info to Cossack article

I can already tell that this is going to be a problem. I wrote a paragraph in the "popular image" section of the Cossacks article about the frequent mention by Pavel Chekov in the Original Series. In little more than a hour it was reverted and the article is quite full of very passionate editors, most of whom edit out of Eastern Europe with strong feelings about the Cossacks and the relationship to the Russians and Eastern Europeans. That's all fine, but this leads directly into WP:OWN and its pretty clear folks arent going to get Star Trek info get in this article. I am inviting editors to watch this article - if the material gets removed again I'll start up a talk page thread on the subject. I for one think the mention in the article is very significant - Star Trek is a major sci-fi series and Checkov did speak of the Cossacks quite often. BTW - does anyone know why Chekov would hate them so much? Was there something going on in Russia in the 1960s (when the episodes were written) where the Cossacks were not seen favorable? Just curious. But, in any event, lets all keep an eye on that article. -OberRanks (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I hate to be the voice of dissent except that 1) I actually do like to dissent and 2) the other editors do have a point. It seems quite trivial in this case to add that particular material to the article. If you have a reliable third party source describing the use of the term in more than trivial detail, then fine. Otherwise, I wouldn't try pushing 3RR. If you disagree with them (and me) why not trying going for a third opinion? Alastairward (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I came here was to get other opinions. Noone broke 3RR either. In fact, the remover of the material put it back in the article when I brought the matter up on the talk page. Very professional; I'm just asking for other editor inputs since its a page on a topic I have little knowledge of. See: Talk:Cossacks for the thread. -OberRanks (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I said you were pushing 3RR (still are I notice). Since more than one editor has objected to your addition and removed it, I suggest you seek a neutral third opinion as per above. It doesn't help that you accuse others of ownership of the article, but then override their concerns and immediately reinsert your edits. Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For other interested editors, dispute appears to be resolved. See Talk:Cossack for full details. -OberRanks (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Imzadi

The article Imzadi has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

So I'm not technically a part of this WikiProject, but I thought I should bring this proposed deletion to your attention because (most notably) the Imzadi article is listed on the {{Star Trek publications}} footer nav template as a "notable novel". The article probably could be saved, though I personally do not know enough about the subject to contribute. Cheers! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a look and tried to edit it so that the content dwelled more on the non-canon novel and not the word. Alastairward (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Don't forget to remove the {{prod}} if you feel it's been cleaned up enough (or when you feel it's been cleaned up enough). Cheers! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review notification: Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

I've opened up a peer review for Star Trek III. Any interested people can leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek III: The Search for Spock/archive1. G'day, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

TOS and LGBT themes: who knew?

There are two mentions of Start Trek episodes in List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes. I personally think that the inclusion of "Turnabout Intruder" is pretty questionable; it's sexist, to be sure, but I think the interpretation as involving alternate sexuality is weak. But feel free to consider it for yourselves.

It's the other case that that I've been concentrating on: it's being asserted that tribbles constitute an LGBT reference because McCoy refers to them as "bisexual". It seems pretty clear to me that he means this in the alternate meaning of "hermaphrodite", but in any case this is turning into a edit war with a stubborn WP:OWNer of the article. If anyone can come up with actual references about this and apply them to the matter, I'd appreciate it. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek episodal infoboxes

I see no need for us to continue to implement and further the usage of a "special" Star Trek infobox for episodes (and characters). I previously brought this up in October 2008, and one of our most prolific contributors agreed with my proposal while the rest were silent. Since Ronny corral (talk · contribs) replaced the infobox at "Mortal Coil" yesterday (change, previously, currently) I would like to bring the subject up again with the intent of codifying the same.

• The Star Trek episode infobox is neigh identical to the wider Wikipedia-spanning general infobox for TV episodes ({{infobox television episode}}) with the only differences (aside from actual maintenance occurring) are the "year" and "stardate" fields. The former is either ambiguous (being that we sometimes don't know between which episodes years changed) or unknown, while the latter is only occasionally known.
• With the exception of Doctor Who (from whom the current infobox is derived) and The Simpsons, every single featured episode article uses the aforementioned site-wide standard infobox, including our own "These Are the Voyages..."!

I'm not advocating the immediate overhaul of replacing infoboxes right away, but just depreciating (technically, if possible) the ST-specific one. I'm far and away preferential to using the more widely-used infobox, but would like to get some specific input from participants herein. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully, however I have no idea how to deprecate them (unless you got a bot to do it, just swapping out the code would result in an ugly mess we'd have to clean out anyhow.) I've been removing it from the articles I edit, but that's only a handful out of the 700+. I'd say just do one or two whenever you have a chance and over time we'll remove them all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do we gain/loose by keeping or changing? I don't have a horse in this race, just curious. Is it to create consistency in Wikipedia articles? Alastairward (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the two are neigh identical anyways, there's not really any need to use a wholly separate infobox from that which most of Wikipedia is already accustomed to. Though you're also right on the point of consistency, there's no need for Star Trek episodes to look different than others'. So from both an aesthetic and usability point of view, I (and others) prefer the consistency of the more widely-vetted and maintained template. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

DWF, by "depreciating", I just mean specifying here at the project and on the template's page that we're not using it anymore, and that editors are encouraged to replace instances with {{infobox television episode}}. It'd eventually be orphaned by attrition, and could be deleted or blanked then. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to avoid episode articles, so don't have much first-hand experience. But, I don't think in-universe trivia -- year and stardate -- are worth maintaining a separate template. Save for TOS, both bits of data are generally discernible from real-world info., i.e. series and season, already clear from the infobox. If you're geeky enough to want to know the stardate, you're geeky enough to guesstimate it from the real-world info. ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with the change, do we have to declare it to be consensus anywhere in particular or just start making the changes? I've been trying to add some reviews to TOS episodes, I could add the box in as I go (if I ever get back to adding them...) Alastairward (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Count to five very slowly...if there's no objection, I'd consider this consensus-reached. --EEMIV (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds consensusy enough for me; done and done. Thanks for everybody's input! Someday when I'm running low on strife, I'll ask about character templates next.  ;^D — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried adding a few of these (Charlie X and some other episodes) I'm just unsure how many guest stars to keep in there. Alastairward (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal preference, really. Do what feels right :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb is to list those guest starring characters that're listed in the opening credits and listed on top of the opening scenes. Just my 3¢. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Articles & Future Articles on Portal:Star Trek

Becuase of the lack of people filling these, I am going to take the future nominations page, and be keeping it up to date. Link: Portal:Star Trek/future portal features Please post any nominations of good articles that you would like to see on the portal page there. I will try not to repeat any. --MWOAP (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart

Is a Sir! Is he the first Star Trek Knight? SGGH ^ping! 14:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Only David Warner, Christopher Plummer or William Shatner come to mind as others who may join him. SGGH ^ping! 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm McDowell? Powers ^T 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile

Resistance is futile has come up for an AfD. I seemed to annoy another editor who was throwing in some edits that weren't really supported by their cites. The article was recently edited to (IMO) aid this editor in making a case for its deletion. Anyone who might help is welcome. Alastairward (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Robinson (actor)/GA1

Notifying the project that this GA, which in in scope, is under reassessment. If you can fix it do so, if not it will be delisted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite this sentence

In a later TOS episode "Requiem for Methuselah", Spock specifically requests a Terran brandy after Dr. McCoy, while serving himself and Captain Kirk, observes that he had no expectation that Spock would be joining them in a drink for fear that the alcohol would affect his logic faculties.

It's 48 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.97.255 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why rewrite it? What's the significance of this? What article does it belong to? Alastairward (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like deletable trivia regardless of where it is. --EEMIV (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A Cleanup listing

Howdy. I was looking for something new to do with regards to Star Trek articles, and I thought about unreferenced BLPs. Apparently, this service is capable of listing stuff like this. This category says one was created for this project. The examples shown here all appear to use the same naming and relative location for the list. For this project, it is a red link (Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Cleanup listing). Does anyone here know if a list was made for this project? And if so, where is it located?--Rockfang (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rockfang, I thought I had added the project to the listings (here) successfully as I seem to recall having done for the article alerts. Perhaps I added it incorrectly. Instructions on using it are above, perhaps someone else might check what I did to see if I did it correctly. Alastairward (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In case it was something I did, I removed the tag from the main page of the project and requested we be added at the clean up bot talk page. Alastairward (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Rockfang (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a little check on this, the user who is responsible for the Bot, User:B. Wolterding, may have finished with Wikipedia. At the very least, updates are on hiatus. Alastairward (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

navbox

Someone has changed the box at the bottom of articles to add "navbox" at the end. I liked the original one for functionality. Anyone else feel this way? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand to what you're referring. Could you be more specific, with examples perhaps? There are a great number of Star Trek-related templates and navboxes. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be in reference to a slew of edits by user 76.229.211.37 from the 16th of this month onwards (contribs). I'm not too bothered to be honest myself, I usually prefer cut down boxes myself. Alastairward (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

When "Star Trek" will do, why use "Navbox"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So not that it is a major problem, I just think it is easier to have. For those who are confused, we have:

OR

My main problem with it is that we have the Episodes lists moved. Another thing is, if we already have the series template box above it, why do we need the full list? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the first navbox is much cleaner and better organized; we should not only group for relevance, but also on the main topics people are likely to click on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick double check on the Deanna Troi article.

Does the cite really confirm this recent edit? I don't have the book to check although it seems likely Roddenberry might have had such an idea... Alastairward (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This suggests that it was DC Fontana rather than Majel Barrett, but underlying idea seems sound. That said, that recent article edit seems a bit off kilter: "a bad idea" is pretty vague, and I'm not sure from the snippet that this is a conversation about Troi, or some prototype character or what. The article's not on my watchlist, though; I'll leave it to its keepers. --EEMIV (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems related as well.--Rockfang (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles of high importance

Is there a rationale for the listing of Law in Star Trek and Physics and Star Trek (the latter with a merge suggestion in place) as of top and high importance respectively? Alastairward (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, really. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Naaaaah. --EEMIV (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Participants section

Could somebody please correct Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Participants to show the correct userbox—{{WikiProject Star Trek userbox}}? I tried and failed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Airplaneman ✈ 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dominion War article: request for review and advice

Hi, I have been working on the Dominion War article, trying to alter it to get the in-universe tag removed. The last GA review agreed to that, but brought up some new issues, e.g. locating real-world sources, and I was wondering if the WikiProject members would mind having a look and offering their suggestions for the next step? Thanks! Ethdhelwen (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, what it needs are more sources, and some reorganization. I'm not sure an entire background section is really needed. What might work better is trimming down the synopsis of the war and moving it to the beginning of the article, then having development, then reception. The lack of print sources really shows; it's going to need a lot more critic views, and also information about story arc development. Finding people who have the DS9 DVDs for episode commentary related to the arc as a whole will probably be the best source, as well as the DS9 Companion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try reorganising those sections. I have just found some more DS9 Companion references and another Ira Behr interview with some information, but am really stuck on print sources and regular tv critic reviews - lots of interesting fan analysis exists, but regular tv critics just don't seem to have cared enough to write beyond reviewing the pilot. A shame! I am wary about setting up a 'plot synopsis' section though, as the article consisted of a neverending plot narrative when I started editing(see earlier article version. I think some of those extraneous plot points still exist in the 'Season Six' and 'Seven' section, actually, so I'll try to trim some of those next.Ethdhelwen (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)