Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Templates

I have submitted a number of Star Trek templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_2#Template:Star_Trek_Romulan_stories, community input would be welcome Fasach Nua (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Spot of help

I'm not quite sure where to draw certain lines at Starfleet International. It reads a bit as an advertisement, and is laden with club trivia. I'm trying to trim a few things to re-anchor it a bit more for a "real world" audience rather than a "members of the club" audience, but would appreciate some help with structure and, especially, third-party sourcing. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I am going to PROD it because after weeding out unreliable sources in a Google search, there still isn't a lot of significant coverage in primary sources that I could find.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Arc. A Guinness record really isn't confirmation of notability; there might be a place for some of the content in Star Trek fandom, however (on that subject, the Trekkie article really could be cleaned up and condensed.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

TNG episode importance?

I've been looking through the unassesed and unknown-importance articles and I noticed there were a lot of episodes (I've been concentrating on The Next Generation, as it's the only series I've seen). I've been rating most of them at start, but I've left the importance field blank because I'm not sure what it should be as I'm kind of unfamiliar with the project. Would you say Mid? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say have a look at the other episodes and see what is there, and gauge from Low to Mid from there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should probably revise our rating criteria at some point, because aside from a handful of episodes I would imagine all the episodes of all the series are about as important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Some would probably be more important, like the first and last of a series, a famous episode, etc.,t han others. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I've starting rating most at Mid, but it seems that the few episodes of all serieses that were rater were at High. Any opinions? Glimmer721 ^talk 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the series are Top, very important episodes are High and the rest would be Mid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Character lists

I just noticed that "Nero" was wikilinked at Star Trek (film). I wondered to myself, "what other article could possibly have more to do with the Nero character than the Star Trek film article itself". Well, I was right; List of Star Trek characters (N–S)#N only repeats the information from the film article and provides a Memory Alpha link.

What purpose does this serve?

I looked at some more items on this list and wondered why they were even listed there.

• Nagilum redirects to "Where Silence Has Lease" as would seem appropriate. The list entrant ("Powerful extra-dimensional creature, fascinated by the concept of death, which it studied by starting to kill off the crew of the Enterprise-D.") is simply duplicative of the content at the episode article, plus a Memory Alpha link.
• Nakahn doesn't exist, but the resultant search brings up three articles: Darkling (Star Trek: Voyager), the episode featuring the character; Stephen Davies (actor), the actor portraying the character, and this list of characters which again duplicates the information from the episode article (plus a Memory Alpha link).
• Nanclus is primarily-sourced AfD fodder failing WP:N and WP:NOR with a Memory Alpha and broken StarTrek.com link. Even still, this list entry is essentially redundant to already-existing information.
• Nano is a disambiguation page which links to Nano (Star Trek) which now redirects to this list article. The character is from the Star Trek: Early Voyages comic series which provides nigh the same information, that the alien was "[c]ommunications officer on the Enterprise under Christopher Pike."
• Neelix has his own article, and is linked duly from Star Trek: Voyager and all episode in which he appeared.

I've run out of words to describe how this list of characters is just an effort in duplicating information that is already presented (more thoroughly and properly) elsewhere!

This list article feels like an attempt to shoehorn in a Memory Alpha level of detail for Star Trek minutiae which are insufficiently notable to satisfy their own articles. Most if not all of the list entrants are covered duly in the articles about their episode/film, and it would be simple enough to merge any reliably sourced information to those articles.

It is my opinion that these such lists should be pared down and deleted. Character names can be redirected to the film/episode in which they appeared so as to provide the reader with the information for which they were presumably searching for in the first place. If a character name is already an article about something else, a hatnote would be appropriate; if the target is a disambiguation page, simply add the character + episode/film name to the list. I would expect this would pare down the list to only a handful of Star Trek characters who are both recurring, and yet are not notable enough to sustain their own article; that could warrant a List of recurring Star Trek characters, it also might not. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category: Speakers of Klingon

Category:Speakers of Klingon has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Spock article

Folks: I've recently been updating the Spock article, it seems a bit of a shame that it's been lingering at C-Class (however it's interesting to note that out of 1,437 articles assessed by WikiProject Star Trek, only 11 (i.e. less than 1%) are rated GA/FA) so I'd like to refine it, perhaps add some new material as well. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what else you think can be done with this article. I've already done some work to expand (in places) and tighten up (in other places) the article. But even if you don't have any suggestions for improvement, it would be most pleasing to me if we could discuss before you delete (or revert), as has happened several times already. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of people who might be working on it, I'll just post comments on the talk page (sort of an informal peer review, I guess.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's cool - I prefer that anyways, but I figured more people would be watching this talk page. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we do indeed need to get more articles to GA/FA status. Spock is a good candidate for this. I believe that James T. Kirk is close to GA status as well. On a side note, I nominated Dominion War for Good Article review yesterday. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing my part—all the FAs are the ones I've worked on :P Alpha, I'll try and review the Dominion War one soon if no one else grabs it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think I'll spend some time today and try to assess the rest of our articles. Then I will go through the stub category to see if any articles have improved since the last assessment. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek character stubs

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

Honestly, this is a credit to your team. We like to keep stub categories at 60 articles or more. But most of your character articles are at least Start class. Keep up the good work! Dawynn (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

USS Pasteur registry

What to do in the following case: The Star Trek Encyclopedia lists the registry of the USS Pasteur as NCC-58928. However, one can clearly see that the registry is NCC-58925 on the shooting model (see also Talk:Hope class starship#Changed registry). Which registry is to be used in such a case? Or should this iconsistency simply be stated in the article, so that the reader knows there is an incosistency? Any help is welcome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

...Does it really matter? We've got a source, use it. If a reliable source mentions the discrepancy, report that too. But ultimately its the registry number, not really that important :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not that big an issue. But we have to choose one registry if we want to list any and my question is, does the the one written on the shooting model trump the source or not? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I created a footnote pointing out the inconsistency in the registry to the reader. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are any number of issues with that article. The title is Hope class starship, but it is referred to as an Olympic class starship throughout the article (except in a caption to the image where it is stated that it is incorrectly referred to as Hope class). MemoryAlpha explains that in pre-production it was Hope class though it was later changed.

"According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Journey's End: The Saga of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and an interview with Michael Okuda on the TNG Season 7 DVD special feature "The Making of 'All Good Things...'", an early pre-production version of the ship's dedication plaque designated the vessel as belonging to the "Hope-class" starship, before being changed to Olympic-class. It would also, however, erroneously list the ship's registry as NCC-58928."

— Memory Alpha article[1]

It's all beyond me. I'm in the "does it matter?" camp. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If there were consensus to move the article to 'Olympic class', I would agree with that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As to the "Does it matter?" argument above: Then I propose to remove the registries from all articles. I mean, seriously, what Real-Life significance do they have anyway, except for the most notable cases, such as the USS Enterprise? I doubt anything would be lost by only giving the ships names. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I could very easily be persuaded to that argument, but I think you'd need a little more consensus. Lets see if anyone else comments, and maybe an RfC? Worm^TT · (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing non-notable registry numbers seems acceptable to me, given that by and large they're trivial. If they are non-trivial then sourcing should be provided to support their significance. In this specific case the discrepancy -may- be notable, but outside of Trek-focused publications I have a hard time believing that the discrepancy drew much attention. Doniago (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong image

In the article USS Sovereign (NCC-73811), the discription shown below the image in the infobox claims this image shows the USS Sovereign NCC-73811. When I click on the image, I get to File:USS_Enterprise_E_First_Contact.jpg. The non-free media use rationale there says in the description: "The USS Enterprise E (1701-E) as featured in Star Trek: First Contact". So unless I am missing something here, the use of this image in the article USS Sovereign (NCC-73811) is inappropriate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also File:USS_Enterprise_E_First_Contact.jpg doesn't seem to have a fair use rationale for its use in USS Sovereign (NCC-73811). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the wrong image, but the content in that article should just be merged into the starship class article anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think consensus on a merge would have to be reached first. Nevertheless, I am going to remove the image from the article. As I said, nothing justifies the inappropriate use of a copyrighted image that lacks a non-free media use rationale for this article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an open merge request at Sovereign class starship, if people chimed in there we could get it done with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article in accordance with WP:NFC#Implementation and enforcement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I commented at Talk:Sovereign class starship regarding a possible merger. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Move of article Hope class to Olympic class

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If no one provides arguments against it, I will move Hope class starship to Olympic class starship. The sources say, it was only initially called Hope class, but later officially changed to Olympic class, thus Hope class seems to be a designation only used during the design phase of that ship. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support (obviously). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book:Star Trek

I've have created Book:Star Trek myself, including The Original Series and The Next Generation and 11 films. So what do you think? JJ98 (Talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I spent ages wondering about making one for TOS but never got round to it. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, so long it is Star Trek canon. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 12:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek V: The Final Frontier/archive1 (Star Trek V at FAC)

Hey all, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is currently at featured article candidates here. If you have the time, comments or concerns would be great. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Important notice

There is an AfD discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship which might be of some interest to this project, since according to the arguments given there, nearly all other articles about the ship classes should be deleted on the same grounds. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I have noticed that several Star Trek episode pages list only memory-alpha.org as the sole reference. As Memory Alpha is technically a wiki, I assume that it cannot be taken as a reliable source. Should these be removed? If so, should they be replaced with something else like from the official Star Trek website? Gagman385 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Memory Alpha is a wiki and cannot be considered reliable. If an alternate source isn't immediately identifiable I'd pull the MA link and CN tag the appropriate information/section/article instead. Doniago (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What if there is an episode page with no references at all? Should these be tagged as unreferenced? I am fairly new at this editing business so I apologize for my newbyness.Gagman385 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so. Memory Alpha can be a good external link, but not a source for the article itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Would the official Star Trek page (startrek.com) be a valid alternative to Memory Alpha for citing episode summaries since they seem to hold the "official" versions or is this still to sketchy?Gagman385 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. But generally you shouldn't need to cite episode summaries. Doniago (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!Gagman385 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation article

I added several images to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article. Constructive criticism is welcome. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 10:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are problems: File:Enterprise Forward.jpg lacks a Non-free use rationale for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the files in accordance with WP:NFC Policy 8 and 10c. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a separate valid non-free use rationale for each article where the file is used. Furthermore, each file must meet all 10 criteria at WP:NFC#Policy. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

what Toshio said. Each image needs a solid defense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And even if you do get a solid defense for each, watch out for WP:OVERUSE... Worm^TT · (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for the feedback. After reading those policy and WP:OVERUSE I can see how you can come to that conclusion, but it's unfortunate because the article's quality is significantly lower without those images, IMO. I don't have time to re-do this and justify fair use for each of those images but someone else is welcome to try. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 18:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ships from video games in articles about ship classes

Galaxy class starship#Other Galaxy-class starships contains a large number of ships many of which seem to have only appeared in some video game or in a single novel. Most of these entries either contain no source at all or only cite the media, where the ship appears as the sole source. In my opinion, these ships should be removed, unless someone can provide sources other than the media where the ship appears mentioning the specific ship. I would appreciate some input by other users before removing these ships from the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Given that the novels and games aren't canon anyhow, they really shouldn't be mentioned. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed all ships with no or only non-canon sources (diff). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this change. The information in question has been in the article for some time and already been the subject of several discussions. I understand that the point of this Wikiproject is to improve Star Trek related articles, but removing almost half of an article's content based on a projects arguable determination on what "should" be there based on "canon" with no discussion on the specific article talkpage is not responsible editing. It would make a lot more sense to mention this question on the article talkpage with a RfC directing interested parties here so a consensus can be reached. I've restored this content until more people can voice their opinions. SeanNovack (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you would not go by the standards of this WikiProject and instead apply Wikipedias general guidelines, I am not sure if this article would even exist. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with removal. We are an encylopedia first and foremost, not a collection of unsourced Star Trek info. I accept that the fictional concept of a Galaxy-class starship is notable, but mentioning every instance that the starship has been included in fiction is just trivia and should be taken out. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I initiated an RFC at Talk:Galaxy class starship#Should articles on ship classes include ships from video games or novels?. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Encounter at Farpoint

Anyone fancy glancing over what I've added and tidying or expanding? TOS is more my series, so I've added pretty much everything I could think of at the moment to that episode article. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war: "racist rant deleted"

There seems to be several rounds of edits by a certain user under different IP addresses: they keep removing the Reception sections on "Elaan of Troyius", "The Omega Glory" and "The Paradise Syndrome" citing that it's a racist rant.--DrWho42 (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how... revert and block. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Starships

The annoying fracas at Talk:Constitution class starship/Constition class starship edit history reminds me of my *cough* long-overdue project of trimming, consolidating, and addressing the mess of articles and lists in Category:Starfleet ship classes. Just to start thinking aloud about it again...

• I don't think a list of each Starfleet starship is warranted. Throughout the WikiProject, we keep stumbling into issues of canon/non-canon X inclusion, conflicting trivial data, etc. This becomes a cumbersome maintenance issue better addressed through an external link to Memory Alpha's and Memory Beta's own categories and lists.
• I think there is sufficient material to provide production information for each class of ship: the various series' Companion books, model kit instructions, and The Arts of texts are a good starting point.
• Ideally, I think the subject of Starships in Star Trek can receive a meaningful article treatment: the interstellar space travel underpinnings from Roddenberry's specs and plans, broad brushstrokes for series' model-making processes (e.g. progressing from TOS' re-use of the Enterprise model with slightly-rearranged registry figures because of budget to the CGI density of Ent), academic responses to Star Trek's treatment of interstellar vehicles, etc.

So, I'm coming back here to put this out there for the current crop of watchlisters to see, and am asking again for feedback on (and hoping for consensus on)

• merging the individual starship class articles to a single article
• removing lists of each individual starship

I think I still have a dusty working draft of this in userspace (for at least the first bullet). Feedback on the notion as a whole? --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. These lists of individual starships are a trivia magnet, as can be seen from the disproportionately long list at Galaxy class starship#Other Galaxy-class starships. And most of the ship class articles have no established notability anyway (two of them already disappeared more or less recently, as they were redirected to other articles and I think the remaining ones have not established their notability either and almost completely rely on primary sources). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the starship articles rely mainly on primary sources. It seems quite sensible to merge them all into a single article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your plan EEMIV. If you need anything from the research I've pulled for the Star Trek film articles, I can send you PDFs of most of my non-book sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do it. Please please please do it ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the initial support. I'll try to cobble something together in userspace before giving "I'm going to do this!" heads-up 3.0 on the individual talk pages, pointing folks here for more input. --EEMIV (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, some sloppy work at User:EEMIV/Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek. Please feel free to jump in there or on the talk page. In particular, I'm not entirely convinced that the series-by-series presentation is the best way to address development ... but, that's probably just because I haven't grabbed onto enough meat to feel there's substantial stuff. Each time I step away from tweaking something, I think about some particular thing I'd like to research (e.g. strobe ligthts and hand animations subbing in for models in TOS, and the way issues with the Romulan models from Balance of Terror led to a script change/addition in Enterprise Incident). Anyway, flashing this all out there for folks to take a gander.

Also, for those of you who have copies of the TOS, TNG, and/or DS9 companions: my copies are sitting on a collapsed shelf in my mother's attic 800 miles away :-). It'd be great to have your help with sourcing. If you have a copy of any of these texts, could you chime in here or email me? I read them all many years ago and I think have a pretty good sense of some assertions they make -- in addition to whatever initiative (if any) you feel like taking on your own, I might ask you to verify and give me a citation for some of the production-level stuff I know this work needs.

Thanks, all! --EEMIV (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got an early edition of the TNG companion; it only goes up through season five but most of the production info should be in there. I've also got The Making of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, which should have some of the same info as the Companion book. Powers ^T 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I cashed in on a Kindle-ized version of the TNG Companion updated through Nemesis, so that's all swell. Might take you up on the others. --EEMIV (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The work at User:EEMIV/Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek is less sloppy. I've for the time-being exhausted the printed references I have access to, although I'm going to start trawling e.g. Memory Alpha to see what additional cited sources they have. I might round out a bit more on the 1701 (I think I have some sources I can turn to) but am going to start emphasizing the merchandising (easy, I think) and the critical reaction (initial hits being kind of thin). Input in terms of structure, depth, and direction would be much appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The only downside to the article as its shaping up is it has a "everything but the kitchen sink" element to how all these details from all these shows are being thrown in. Perhaps the best idea for some of the more episode-specific details on ships is to have said additional info be put into a "Starship classes" etc article, which would have a complete list of canon classes and details about their design. That way the overview Starships in Star Trek can be more general about model techniques--just a couple paragraphs for each "era". Perhaps gutting List of Starfleet starships ordered by class into such a list would help? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a big info-dump; one of my big bold reminders at the top is to try to trim it. There are some chunks of text for specific models that provide disproportionate coverage to the model simply because I copy-and-pasted from existing articles; that can certainly be reduced. In a lot of ways, it's just a prose-ified list. I'm hoping some third-party coverage talking about evolution of filming techniques and a connection between visual design and show/film theme can provide some more meat. Thanks for the feedback; I completely agree. --EEMIV (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't let another year go by without knocking this out. I've moved my work so far into mainspace here, although I haven't made redirects yet for the individual class articles. I haven't wholly followed through on the feedback above -- I think the biggest weakness is its "every nitpicky detail" approach, at the loss of overall cohesion. An underlying contributing weakness may just be its overall mostly-but-not-quite chronological structure; might need to reorg or consolidate a bit. Anyhow, I hope the migrating to mainspace will bring some more active engagement and edits. --EEMIV (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The work at Spacecraft in Star Trek continues, with a big structural overhaul and substantial trimming/merging outward of content. I've also changed the TNG-era ship class articles to redirects. Holding off on others for the time being -- this being a (US) holiday weekend, I'm going to pause to gauge reaction. Any and all feedback and assistance welcome. --EEMIV (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute in Trekkie article

Hello, we are having a content dispute in Trekkie over whether a particular section should be included. The text in question is here, and the discussion is at Talk:Trekkie#Child porn vandalism?.

In addition to my arguments found at the Talk page, I wish to add the following:

• I am a longtime editor who has done substantial work in Trekkie and Star Trek: The Original Series, and smaller amounts of work in other Star Trek-related pages (Patrick Stewart, for example).
• The section has seen repeated vandalism attempts by many IP editors, as you can see from the edit history. This is the first time a discussion about it has been opened on Talk.
• I realize that the thought of pedophilia associated with a field we are interested in is very unpleasant. Unpleasantness by itself is not a reason for deleting text; the familiar tests of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:BLP (which doesn't apply here) and other such remain the guidelines. In other words, WP:IDONTLIKE is not in itself a valid argument.
• I acknowledge that WP:UNDUE may be the one test above that applies to the section, not because the content inherently unbalances the length or coverage of the overall article--it is far too wide-ranging and detailed for that--but because it may simply be too long regardless of its merits. As stated in Talk, I am willing to discuss trimming the section, especially the blockquote.

I ask others to keep an open mind, read the cites and the Talk discussion, and share your feedback. Ylee (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dilithium

Hey. About a year after an AfD !voted keep but no work was done to improve the article, I redirected Dilithium (Star Trek) to the list of fictional elements. Another editor has restored the content, citing a need to give a home to cruft that is cropping up elsewhere on the project. On the talk page, I articulated my disagreement with the rationale for that decision and doubts about the existence of meaningful coverage of dilithium. But, heck, the material is sitting out there now; the article and talk page alike would probably benefit from this group's input. --EEMIV (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek reboot sequel

I have created the article for the sequel. I've called it Star Trek 2 (film) because a redirect to Wrath of Khan prevented me from calling it just Star Trek 2 (which i know is a working title, it's more better-sounding than Untitled Star Trek Sequel. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:26 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-canon starships

In order to avoid stuff like this following this edit of mine, I want to reach a consensus for the following change to Sovereign class starship. I want to remove the following ships and their accompanying text entries from section Known Sovereign-class starships:

Ship	Rationale for removal
USS Bozeman (NCC-1941-A)	only briefly mentioned in dialogue in one single movie, not notable
USS Gibraltar	non-canon, not notable
USS Atlas	non-canon, not notable
USS Musashi	non-canon, not notable
USS Tirpitz	non-canon, not notable
USS Tempest	non-canon, not notable
USS Constellation	non-canon, not notable

Feedback welcome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Anything not concretely canon (or at least discussed in secondary sources) should go. Memory Alpha is place for speculation, Memory Beta for non-canon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Bozeman and the Constellation were canon though...not sure where. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. If I remember correctly, a Bozeman is mentioned in the dialogue one can hear over the com system prior to the Enterprise-E entering the battle against the Borg cube, but is never identified as Sovereign class in canon. I do not remember a Sovereign Constellation ever being identified as Sovereign in any episode or movie, thus I think it is non-canon. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, this is true, for the Bozeman...I watched that episode just the other day, that's why. The other I'll trust your judgement on. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Canon or non-canon is an discussion for fanboys, our discussion should be about verification, if they are verifiable and mentioned in RS, they are in, if they are not, they are not. The canon discussion is a red herring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I already said elsewhere, I believe all the starship class articles should be merged or deleted (perhaps except for Danube class starship, which has a good amount of third party sources). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, let's start with the problem at hand - most of those entries in the Galaxy class article should go - they are simply trivial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but I'd like to mention that usually mass deletions of material from articles isn't done after 48 hours of discussion. It really isn't polite to not allow alternative opinions. As to whether or not the list of ships should be there - my life will not end if they are removed. My only issue is with the process by which the change was made. Rather than adopting an elitist tone and dismissing what somebody obviously felt was important wnough to put in as "cruft" and deleting with virtually no explanation, delete as per this discussion and direct people here if they want to debate the issue. Doing this invites people to participate in the process instead of simply sawing them and their opinions off at the knees and starting potential edit wars. For the record, I am not the originator of any of this material to the best of my knowledge, so other than the RfC I referred to earlier (which finished inconclusive, hardly a certain deletion of material that was there) this isn't personal to me. SeanNovack (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shuttlecraft at AfD

I nominated Shuttlecraft (Star Trek) for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttlecraft (Star Trek)). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy-Class starship list

The list of "Galaxy-class" starships in the Galaxy class starship article was removed as "cruft". As per the results of a AfD on this page it as established that the list was germain to the scope of this article. If this Wikiproject has decided that these lists under Starship type are verboten, then please reference the applicable ruling when removing them, otherwise the results of the AfD on the page itself should stand. SeanNovack (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh... Wikipedia is not a directory? The list themselves aren't notable. As you can see from discussions on this page there has been a big push to remove extraneous, poorly sourced or non-notable aspects from the articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Organian

I have proposed a merger of Organian into List of Star Trek races. The proposal is here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with shuttlecraft

Since the article Shuttlecraft (Star Trek) was kept at the AfD, can someone lend a helping hand in rewriting the article? Or could someone please at least state how the article can be made encyclopedic? The article as it is still seems to be mostly written from an in-universe perspective. Could some of those who voted 'Keep' please advice me how that article can be made an encyclopedic treatment of the subject? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Image in character infobox

Would it be a good idea in a character infobox to have an image showing the whole character (not just a portrait)? For example, I would like to take this image to replace the current infobox image in the article Tasha Yar. Of course I would try to reduce the noise in that image in an image editing program prior to uploading it. I am not aware of a policy or guideline saying we must use portraits for articles about characters and that image shows, what the whole character looks like. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason we need to include the whole of a character? In 90% of cases there's nothing "below the belt" that's noteworthy about a character. Including a whole image of the character seems somewhat unnecessary in such cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the image showing the whole character more accurately represents what the character looks like in the series, since in the series the character is not depicted by only showing the face most of the time. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think readers are going to wonder if their bottom torso is alien or not. WP:NFCC stipulates that we use as little of a copyrighted work as possible--that includes portions of the representation as well as pure dimensions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --EEMIV (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, yup.... not too many Husnak appeared on screen or ever will. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek: Phase II ?

The fan based series, Star Trek: New Voyages was renamed Star Trek: New Voyages Phase II. However, Gene Rodenberry's original idea for a second Star Trek show was also Star Trek: Phase II. I noticed that the rederect for Star Trek: Phase II can send a person to the fan based show. I don't think this is appropriate. The fan based show should not be allowed to be confused with Roddenberry's "failed" second series concept. Akuvar (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? Star Trek: Phase II is an article, with a hatnote pointing toward the fan series. The redirects to the fan series all seem appropriate, and none are better-directed to the failed show. --EEMIV (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • You're right, my bad. I clicked on a link to Phase II without checking the link itself and seeing the (fan based) in it. Sorry! Akuvar (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft:LGBT in Star Trek

Hello, folks,

This draft was on the list to be deleted tonight but I made an edit to give it another 6 months life. It's in much better shape than 99% of the drafts that go stale and I think it would make a great addition to coverage of this show if there isn't already an article on this subject. The page creator was blocked and so it will need a new editor to review it and submit it to AFC or move it into main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! However, what are the reasons it shouldn't be taken live? A quick look on mobile looks pretty good, actually. A lot better than many live articles. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason not to move it to main space if you think it is ready. These days I primarily work with stale drafts & speedy deletions and I see a lot of articles moved from draft space to main space without being submitted to AFC reviewers and they often get immediately tagged for deletion so I'm probably overly cautious here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, again. I'm in the opposite camp, I suppose: I have no idea how drafts work, and didn't want to assume some sort of process inappropriately. I'll let it sit for a bit in case other project members think differently than I, and then I'll move it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the article, it clearly needs a lot of work. There are a few citation needed and failed verification tags I hope would be dealt with first and foremost. If you're volunteering that's great, but unless someone is interested in doing the work I would leave it where it is.
Take a look at the Memory Alpha article on Sexuality in Star Trek: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sexuality#Non-heterosexual_characters_in_Star_Trek in particular the sections on non-heterosexual characters. It points to some sources that might be useful and gives some idea of how the draft might be improved ... if someone is interested in doing the work. -- 109.76.129.26 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I should have known to be more suspicious of a DRAFT article with such a large first edit and very little improvement. It was clearly copied from the article Sexuality in Star Trek without attribution. I'd recommend the draft for speedy delete. -- 109.79.175.162 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"Must-Watch" episodes

With edits such as this one, Starspotter (talk · contribs) has been updating many DS9 episode articles to include that they were listed as "Must-Watch" episodes by Gizmodo. However, of 176 total episodes of the series, 117, or 2/3 of the series, is considered "must-watch".

Under these circumstances, I find it WP:INDISCRIMINATE to include this information (indeed, at that point it almost seems more noteworthy if an episode is not a "must-watch"), but welcome opinions from other editors. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It might merit a collated mention along the lines of lists of best-of episodes, but I agree on its own it probably shouldn't be included if it's got that broad a net. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not just DS9, there are similar articles authored by James Whitbrook for the other shows. I agree the articles mention far too many episodes making them almost meaningless (even if DS9 is a show were you really should watch most of the episodes.) The articles include little more than descriptions for most episodes, but in a few rare cases they do actually offer some useful commentary.[2] But I agree, for most episodes it is simply not worth mentioning. -- 109.79.175.162 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The io9 James Whitbrook article for Enterprise lists approximately 42 45 out of 98 episodes as "must watch".[3]

Compare that to the much more discriminating Wired binge watch guide which listed approximately 12 episodes as essential.[4] -- 109.79.177.140 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts everyone; looks like we have a consensus here. DonIago (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

How do you add an alert?

There is a discussion here to merge Romulan language into Romulan and I was going to post an alert about it, but absolutely couldn't figure out how to do it. StarHOG (Talk) 12:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The merge tag should be placed at the top of the article page, not hidden on the talk page. I've added it.[5]

The article does not contain any Star Trek categories or the Project banner on the Talk page so I expect the Merge warning notification will not appear in any of the status boxes Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, in case that is what you meant. [P.S. After I added Category:Star Trek to the article the alert appeared on the project page automatically a day later.]

As it is a very small article with no references it would need a whole lot of work before I could even consider arguing against the merge proposal, and I'd much prefer to find any reason to argue for keeping it. For comparison the Klingon language is massively detailed and extensively referenced.

Looking at the article history it was previously a redirect, and someone (User:Kwamikagami) restored the article [6] but then did nothing else to improve it. Unless someone is actively interested in working on it then the previous redirect (WP:STATUSQUO) could probably simply be restored without further discussion. -- 109.76.193.171 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough info in the article to necessitate an alert. Note that since a canonical language and script were created for Picard, it's likely that the section/article will be expanded in the near future, but location could be decided then. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless you (Kwamikagami) are indirectly saying that you are going to expand the article soon, then I do not think it is at all likely that anyone else will do it. I am a little surprised that you restored the article but did not do anything to expand it. Starting a Draft and improving that first might be a better idea anyway. -- 109.76.193.171 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User Kwamikagami has not given any indication that he intends to improve the article, although he has expressed optimism that improvements will happen he has not actually objected to the merge. It is not clear if there are enough sources to meet the WP:GNG general notability requirements for a separate article. There barely seems to be enough information for a paragraph in the Romulan article, and I would strongly suggest expanding that article first until a WP:SPLIT is neeeded.

I think we should restore the redirect already. If no one makes a substantive objection or does it first I will restore the redirect sometime tomorrow. -- 109.79.176.128 (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)