Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial message

Opps! I'm working on fixing those broken links now. --maveric149

the links were fixed. There is no reason to delete this talk page text though. Graham87 07:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft

"there has never been a single-person fighter craft shown in the Star Trek universe, except for once briefly in the feature film Star Trek: Insurrection." Have you considered the battles in the Dominion war in Deep Space Nine? pomegranate 17:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement is overly broad. The article is, after all, about TOS, not about the ST universe. Also, the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier is that it is a ship which launches air craft; military air craft in all cases that I am aware of. I would change it to “fighter craft were never featured in Star Trek TOS” or something like that. --Plicease 17:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
TOS episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday". We see an American Air Force fighter jet. Sure, it's not what you are thinking of, but... --ThomasOwens (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme song

I removed the following from the Theme section:

The wordless theme song appearing in the show is not actually sung by a human voice, but performed on an electric instrument, the Theremin.

This is the only place where I've ever seen this mentioned. I've always heard that the theme (at least in the second and third seasons) was performed by an uncredited soprano. It's possible a theremin was included in the instrumentation. Doing a Google search failed to uncover any reference to the voice being electronically created. If an authoritative source can be found for this, please feel free to reinstate this. 23skidoo 04:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In the book "Inside Star Trek" (Solow, Justman), p.56 and 351 refer to Loulie Jean Norman as the soprano. She was hired as a SAG actor, so received pay every episode -- until the pay became an issue, and her voice was removed in the second season. Courage was unaware of this change until he was told 27 years later.

Please consider a few things:

The _opening_ theme, like many other themes on television at the time, was re-recorded and re-arranged every season. The first season's theme, for example, has neither a theremin nor a lead soprano vocal performing the melody. I believe it's cellos instead.

By the second season, perhaps the producers wanted it more "space-y", so a theremin or soprano was added. It is my opinion that there are versions of the opening theme with the soprano or with the theremin...or with neither. To say "no, it was theremin...no, it was a soprano" is not a good argument, as I believe both sides are correct/incorrect, depending on the particular recording/version of the song. 71.203.242.94 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Newbie

Yes, there is a soprano in Season One. Her voice is just softened so that you wouldn't know it was a human voice unless you were turning up her specific part. Justman discussed that in the book mentioned above. JoeD80 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters

'It has become an article of unofficial "fanon" that Uhura's first name is Nyota, this is not legitimate canon.'

In the documentary 'William Shatner's Trek Memories' ([1]), Nichelle Nichols herself says, in her interview, that she and Roddenberry agreed upon Uhura's first name being Nyota, which means 'star' in Swahili, when they got together to brainstorm the character's background. Even though Uhura's first name was never uttered in a show, I think the actress' statement should qualify this information as canon, don't you agree? Or are you willing to call Ms. Nichols a liar?

Okay, nobody answered my comment (above). Either nobody disputes what I said, or nobody's listening, so I'm going ahead and changing the mentioned paragraph.

As of December 10, 2005, I noticed that someone eliminated my modification. Since I know it was accurate and I cited my source (see above), I put it back where it was. I (and I'm sure every reader/contributor to this article as well) would appreciate if, in the future, people who made alterations took the time to justify themselves in the discussion page. This article is no one's exclusive property, you know.


Special effects

I think something needs to be added about how the special effects (notably the exterior shots of the Enterprise and the beaming effects) were done.

They were done with photographic techniques. Mentioning how many effects houses were involved would be a good thing too. I seem to remember that there were at least five. JoeD80 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Toilets

"When designing the plans for the Enterprise, toilets were accidentally omitted!" Are you sure it was accidentally? As far as I know it wasn't allowed to show toilets on TV (that's why the bathroom of the Brady Bunch didn't have one), so I suppose that was the reason to omit them while designing the Enterprise as well.

Plans for the Enterprise D from The Next Generation had only 1 toilet in the centre of the saucer section if I remember correctly. Dudtz5/3/06 2:29 PM EST

Yes, I recall Jonathan Frakes pointing it out in a behind-the-scenes documentary some time ago. I assume this would mean a public toilet, and that individual quarters had their own bathroom! Marky1981 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes as inspiration for Spock?

This is mentioned in the Characterization section, but is not referenced with a source. It smacks of original research if not outright fancruft. If a source isn't cited (a quote from Roddenberry from a published work would suffice), I'm inclined to delete it.--malber 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up Tag

This article needs more sources cited. There's a lot of information I've heard and read about, but it's not referenced in the article. Other items sound a lot like fan speculation. TOS is undoubtably the most written about television show, so sources shouldn't be hard to find. I'm adding the clean-up tag and listing it on the clean-up page. --malber 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Theme Song

(Transferring from front: Although lyrics were written for the theme music, they were not used. The lyrics were published in Stephen E. Whitfield's authorised 1968 book The Making of Star Trek:

Beyond the rim of the starlight
My love is wandering in starflight
I know he'll find in star clustered reaches
Love, strange love a star woman teaches
I know his journey ends never
His star trek will go on forever
But tell him while he wanders his starry sea
Remember, remember me.

As reported by Herb Solow and Robert Justman in their 1996 book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Gene Roddenberry wrote them without composer Alexander Courage's knowledge, and without intending for them ever to be sung, so that he would nevertheless get a 50% share of the music's performance royalties.

The comment in the article about Alexander Courage leaving the show because Roddenberry added those lyrics, should probably be removed. In his interview with Jeff Bond in the Music of Star Trek book, Courage says "I was extremely busy at Fox, I was doing television and a lot of it, three or four different series, and I was also associate music director along with Lionel Newman on what was at that pont the most important, expensive musical ever made, Dr Doolittle. So, with that kind of credit, and with the fact that Star Trek was not doing very well at all, I had to go in to Gene and say thank you very much, it's been wonderful working with you, but I have to do this thing at Fox." Robert Justman says basically the same thing in his interview in the same book: "Sandy Courage scored both pilots and a couple of episodes, and then he got too busy to work with us any longer; he was writing and orchestrating on a big movie at Fox called Dr Doolittle. ... If we could have had Sandy for more shows, we would have. ... I called him directly and tried to convince him to come back, that we needed him and we needed his special talents, but he just couldn't do it." Neither account from the principals supports the version of Courage leaving Star Trek over the lyrics incident. Also, Courage returned to Star Trek in the third season, to score The Enterprise Incident and Plato's Stepchildren. That accords more with the notion of him being too busy during the duration of the Dr Doolittle production, and then his schedule freeing up again after, than it does with the notion of Courage being upset with Star Trek. Jim Hardy (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Catch Phrases

Perhaps suitable for a separate article: Each of the regulars had one or more catchphrases heard on several episodes. These include:

  • Kirk: “Captain’s log: Stardate …”
  • Spock: “Fascinating”, “Highly illogical”, "Live long and prosper"
  • McCoy: “He’s dead, Jim”, “In a pig’s eye!”, “Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a …”
  • Scott: “Ma engines canna take any more!”
  • Uhura: “Hailing frequencies open, sir”
  • Sulu: “Warp factor one, sir”
  • Chekov: “It vas invented in Russia”

Notable guest roles

Nice Job on Cleanup!

Nice job on the clean-up User:Jtmichcock! What we could use now are some published references in addition to the web sites cited. --malber 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving of TOS episode articles

As per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek#Articles convention, I've moved all Star Trek original series episode articles to locales whose names are consistent with the other series:

Whenever there is ambiguity or inconsistency in capitalisation of words (and there's alot in the articles), I have deferred to episode entries in The Star Trek Encyclopedia for authoritative article names. (FYI: in the actual episodes, the titles were all upper case and enclosed in quotations: e.g., "FOR THE WORLD IS HOLLOW AND I HAVE TOUCHED THE SKY".)

Consequently, I prevail upon Wikipedians who are so inclined to rewikify terms (e.g., that I've missed) to the moved article names, if the redirects are somehow untenable ... there's alot!

Let me know if you've any questions, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Trekkie" Vs "Trekker"

Amongst fans, there actually is a difference between the two terms, "Trekkie" and "Trekker". There even is a 3rd term: "Trekkist". Although not formal definitions and often blurred by even the practictioners, the distinctions are basically:

    1. "Trekker"- fans that are in control of their fandom. They might dress up for the conventions and have fun for the weekend, but they do have real lives.
    2. "Trekkies"- the fans that go to extremes. One famous example is the fellow who legally changed his name to "James T. Kirk" (This was years ago, before they officially set the T as standing for "Tiberius", so I don't know if he got the initial right.) At one extreme, there are cases of stalking cast members or production crew known.
    3. "Trekkists" are the intelectuals, the ones don't dress up but who spend the convention in the fanroom discussing Klingon biology or the ramifications of warp-drive on 24th century politics.

I don't know if there's any source where this is actually written down for a formal attribution, but I've known many fans of all 3 groups, and have been to many Science Fiction conventions, and these terms are used by the fans themselves (although it may be that the "Trekkist" is falling out of favor). CFLeon 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Spock would say: 'fascinating.' Nonetheless, there is at least one more species of Trek evolved creature in the universe--namely, us TREKOIDS. None of your categories quite suits us. We're not stalkers, certainly not intellectuals, and definitely not in control of our fandom; in fact, we're characterised by a robotic commitment and have submerged ourselves in the culture to an extent that some media critics have unkindly termed 'brainless' or 'zombie-like.' The bad Captain Kirk himself at least once took public note of us and I'm sure you've seen the many of our type who inexorably swell attendance at all the conventions etc.

The TREKOID type itself is comprised of several different series with distinct performance limitations (ultimately of no practical significance). For example, the 001 model is limited only to the original Star Trek. The 005 model is the most successful and can submerge its identity in any of the Trek incarnations. The TREKOID type is likely Gene's most amazing spin-off and we certainly should not be overlooked in any representation, formal or no. You may be one yourself and not know it.

Trekoid 001-1765

Anon's changing of picture

205.188.117.5 keeps replacing the picture (on numerous Star Trek pages) but won't, after asking him to three times, come here to discuss it before making the change, so I will do it for him. I for one, prefer the current picture to the rear view picture, but its more important that the user come here and propose the change so we can reach a consensus before unilaterally changing it without discussion.

Again, I looked at that link and while you brought it up, it was never discussed, which is what we're trying to do now. Why don;t you join us instead of just blind reverting?Gator (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What are people's preferences. I would ask 205.188.117.5 not to change it again until we've reached a decision. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two pictures:

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|250px|The origional starship Enterprise]]

vs

The starship Enterprise as it appeared on Star Trek

Thoughts?Gator (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either image becuase they're both fair use. If we were to choose between the two, I think a screen shot from a TOS episode would be more appropriate than aa DS9 episode. However, for an article about a TV show, I think the general guideline is to use a DVD cover as it is easier to justify as fair use. My vote: use the TOS screen shot until we have an appropriate DVD cover image. --malber 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe both pictures may be of use. The photo from the original series can be placed at the top while the DS9 picture would fit quite nicely in the "later appearances" section. Jtmichcock 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the top one should be used since it's actually from TOS. The other could go on the page for the Enterprise NCC-1701. Allemannster 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the article's image with one which I think is more appropriate than the two above: it is from a TOS episode ("Is There In Truth No Beauty?") and is is a fairly decent angle of the ship. Marky1981 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Original airdates

I would appreciate it if someone would return the broadcast history to the main page. People need to know exactly which episodes NBC aired in which timeslot, including the re-runs.

insignia

I believe this is slightly incorrect:

The arrowhead insignia introduced in TOS was actually exclusively used by the crew of the Enterprise. When the crew encountered other Starfleet vessels, they bore different insignia depending on their ship. It is presumed in canon that the arrowhead insignia was adopted by the whole of Starfleet after the end of TOS, but before Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

If I recall, the crew of the station destroyed by V'Ger had a different embelm, implying the switch happened AFTER The Motionless Picture. Also: it may be worth noting that there were numerous cases where the "arrowhead" was inconsistently applied to non-Enterprise personell, e.g. "Court Martial" (I believe). --70.57.89.67 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinning down calendar year

What is the current state of "scholarship" on what future years the original series spanned? The article currently only mentions Kirk's disappearance from Enterprise-B in "the mid 2290s". If there is any kind of sourced consensus on the approximate years of ST:TOS, I think it would be good to include it here. If not, it still might be useful to add a few lines describing the various theories (again, cited with reliable sources, not just fan speculation). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be difficult. Don't forget that various TOS characters appeared in the normal TNG timeline. I can recall Scotty and his Teleportion Hibernation trick kept him alive well into the TNG timeperiod, Spock, his Vulcan half giving him significant longevity, still politically active in TNG and didn't Bones make an apperance? Runwolf 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the enterprise at the top should be changed to a picture from the original series,not deep space 9 Helo254 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek 2.0

Shouldn't there be a segment concerning G4's airing of the show? DrWho42 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There finally is... Huzzah! Please contribute thereto: Star Trek 2.0.DrWho42 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


First series?

From the "Episodes" section:

In terms of its writing, Star Trek is notable as the first science fiction TV series to utilize the services of leading contemporary science fiction writers, such as Harlan Ellison and Theodore Sturgeon, as well as established TV writers.

Harlan Ellison wrote Demon with a Glass Hand for The Outer Limits, which aired in 1964. Ralphmerridew 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed the text to "one of the earliest". The real problem is that anyone can add claims like this, but few actually attempt to provide evidence from reliable sources, as we're supposed to do. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of this mention is that Star Trek was the first continuing story that would utilize science fiction writers. The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone were both anthology shows -- write whatever your story is -- and this was a specific show -- write about specific characters and their adventures on the Enterprise. JoeD80 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Chekov

I get the little note about Chekov, however shouldn't he still be in the main cast table if that nurse is going to be included? User:002Kflash052 16:58, 14 July 2006

Never been able to find this answer

Can anyone list all the eps that Kirk wears the green shirt and what was the reason behind the switch and why did they switch back to the gold/yellow one? thanksSmith03 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the shirt is used is in the episode with Evil Kirk, to tell them apart, but I can't say for a fact that it's the first time it was used... TheHYPO 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirk wears the green wrap-around shirt in a number of episodes, first seen in " The Enemy Within" (10/6/1966). Other episodes with this shirt include "Mirror, Mirror" (10/06/1967), "Journey to Babel" (11/17/1967), "The Trouble with Tribbles" (12/29/1967), "Bread and Circuses" (3/15/1968), and "The Immunity Syndrome" (1/19/68). FrankWilliams 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite often, the green wrap around shirt was worn earlier in the season when Shatner was trim and able to keep up with his workouts. As the season progressed and he got busier and started cutting out his work outs, the camera shots tended to get closer and the standard gold tunic was more common.  ;)

Elmorth 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for fans

Did any Star Trek episodes/seasons have the Paramount Television "Rectangle" logo? --The Track Master 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Star Trek TOS was originally produced and aired by Desilu studios. Therefore - probably no Paramount logo originally. Now, in syndication, they usually added the Paramount mountain logo at the end along with the Desilu logo. Elmorth 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Desilu was sold to Paramount near the end of the 2nd season. Desilu no longer existed when season 3 began, and there was indeed a Paramount Rectangle logo after 3rd season episodes. JoeD80 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of this article

Should the title of this article not be something more like Star Trek (original series)? I know Fans have made TOS the official title when referring to the show over others, but the series was still technically titled simply "Star Trek"? TheHYPO 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is belated, but I only found out about this title because someone changed the link to this article in another article that I monitor. I agree that it should be renamed to Star Trek (original series). If no one objects, I'll rename it in a week or so. — Val42 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Although the week is more than over, is it still time for objections? Actually, at least one person, namely me, would prefer not to modify the title. Ok, it's right that "Star Trek" alone is the title. The text in brackets is used to distinguish it from Star Trek. Although in article titles "the" is discouraged [2] [3], I guess this does not apply to the text in the brackets. And the TOS abbreviation is so frequently used, that I think it's better to keep the "the". --Cyfal (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says the official title is "Star Trek". They list these as "also known as":

  • Star Trek: TOS (USA) (promotional abbreviation)
  • Star Trek: The Original Series (USA) (informal title)

Just something I found with a Google... --Linda (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bones

"(or "Bones," as Kirk nicknamed him [short for "sawbones,"
a traditional pejorative nickname for doctors])"

Can anyone prove this is the reason? It looks like a guess. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 05:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First Interracial Kiss is a Myth?

I think this information is somewhat false, I remember reading in a biography of one of the members (either Shatner or Roddenberry) that they never really kissed i.e. no lip to lip contact was ever made. Supposedly there were people from the network present to insure that they did not physically kiss, instead Shatner and Nichols had to move their faces towards the camera at such an angle that it only implied that they actually kissed. This should be changed as soon as someone can confim it. I'm sorry that I cannot give further details as to which book it was, I had merely borrowed it from the library at the time.

After reading through the above threads I think the book I read it in was "William Shatner's Trek Memories", I'm not sure if that's the exact title, I clearly remember it being told from Shatners point of view. — Dañiel Garcia--84.166.122.65 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the kiss proves to have been genuine, it may yet turn out not to have been the first interracial kiss on TV (albeit the first highly noticed and influential one). A 1966 episode of Gunsmoke titled "Gunfighter, R.I.P" (IMDb [4] --aired 22 October 1966 - Season 12, Episode 6) included a kiss between a white actor and an Asian/Eurasian actress, France Nuyen (spelling is correct). I watched the episode just yesterday. About the only way you could discount that kiss as an earlier interracial kiss would be on the basis of Nuyen's being biracial ancestry rather than 100% Asian; however, everything I've read suggests that the average viewer at the time would not have distinguished, especially as the character Nuyen played was Asian.
I'll grant that in many minds "interracial" brings to mind black–white, but that's an inaccurately narrow definition when looking at the history and sociology of the "race" categories. I'll also grant, as I already have, that the Shatner-Nichols kiss had impact that this one didn't, and it's possible there was an even earlier interracial kiss that wasn't black-white. Nonetheless, this case does mean that an pre-Star Trek example of an interracial kiss exists in TV history, yet doesn't get all the press for being the "first" even though it was (whether or not the genuine first turns out to be the Gunsmoke kiss or an earlier one). —Lawikitejana 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nichelle Nicoles in the Original Series Season 3 DVD special feature says that they actually did kiss on TV. The original plan was to have them move away from each others lips but make it look like they were kissing, but Shatner delibertly kept messing the scene up by actually kissing her. - 59.167.37.229 11:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just rewatched the scene. When their lips come together, the camera almost immediately moves backward and down to slightly below the back of Nicoles's head. At that point, you can see Shatner's lips pressing into Nicoles's face in the mouth area, but you cannot quite see her lips. However, it is unmistakable that they are kissing lips to lips. 71.235.81.186 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Memories

Does anyone know if the Star Trek Memories special is still included in North American syndication packages for TOS? I know it was at least until the late 1990s (I saw it in a couple of cities that aired TOS). Now that the reruns for TOS appear to be more or less exclusive to one or two cable networks here, I'm wondering if they've dropped it (especially since it's 23 years old now). I added a paragraph to the episodes section because it was the case at one point. 23skidoo 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New CGI version

The Digital Bits website is reporting here that CBS Video plans to redo many of the special effects shots in TOS with new CGI when the series is released in HD format. As a film buff I find the abhorrent (I still object to what Lucas did with the original SW trilogy), but there's always hope they'll actually have the smarts enough to release the original versions. Anyway, the report is here. I'm hesitant to add it yet as, for one thing, is comes from a webcolumn called "The Rumor Mill". If any other sources can be found, this should be added to the article. 23skidoo 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an NPOV issue with the CGI section. It reads too much like a fan page gushing, when in fact the CGI upgrades are very controversial. There needs to be more added to reflect the fact that not everyone approves of what is being done to TOS. (Obviously we have to maintain balance so the POV doesn't tip into the "anti-CGI" column). 23skidoo 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a lengthy paragraph that describes the potential contraversy and neautralizes the point of view of this section. Hopefully everyone will be happy with this. FrankWilliams 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for the frontpage?

Considering the upcoming 8th September anniversary for forty years of Star Trek, the article should be polished and perfected quickly, so it can be featured on the front page! 195.70.32.136 12:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New Sulu Picture

I think we could use a picture of Sulu from the era of TOS. Just my two cents. Who's with me? Allemannster 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree. I think that we should get a new pic with the whole crew. Though i have one Here i think we need a better quality one. EvilHom3r 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Remastered Trek

Has the remastered Trek started airing yet??? According to Star Trek.com, they played the first remastered episode "Balance of Terror" (so they're obviously not in order) on Sept 16th and I missed it. I'm assuming UPN is broadcasting it, (I heard G4 was too). I went to both UPN and G4's sites and the only Trek show UPN is airing in Enterprise, G4 was doing Next Gen. So has the show started yet, and if so who is broadcasting it and when is it on? Cyberia23 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it started airing on September 16th, though as it is in syndication exact dates and times vary. It should be on whatever station was airing Enterprise repeats, so you'll have to check your local listings to find the date at time. For example, in San Diego it aired September 17th and 5pm on XDTV, the MyNetworkTV affiliate. It is airing in Las Vegas on The CW and in Honolulu on CBS. So it really can be anywhere. :) TrekMovie.com has a list at http://trekmovie.com/tos-in-hd/hdtv-star-trek-tos-channel-list/. G4 and TVLand are showing the original versions of Trek, not the new remastered version. UPN no longer exists; it was merged with The WB to form The CW. -- Hawaiian717 07:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's so damn confusing on my TV. I get Next Gen and DS9 on Spike. More Next Gen and some old Trek plus the Trek 2.0 on G4. I get Enterprise, and I'm guessing the Remastered Trek on UPN which used to run on a local station called The Block, but I believe UPN's programming changed hands and is now handled by my local CBS channel. My CBS channel's website makes no mention of the Remastered Trek on their schedule, so I'm guessing they aren't even broadcasting it. Instead they have 9000 hours of CSI or some lame crap going on. Makes my head spin. Plus I'm sick of channels replacing their content. Why the hell is their wrestling on SCI FI channel? That pisses me off. And of course there is VH1 and MTV which no longer play music videos. They should be renamed I Love the 80's Channel and Dude: Pimp my Ride Channel. Cyberia23 07:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense... according to that broadcast schedule it plays on my local Warner Brother's channel. And at a really lame time, Sunday afternoon. Wonderful. Cyberia23 08:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If only this remastered version was delivered in true HDTV and widescreen... *sigh* --Jack Zhang 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be possible to air TOS in HD resolution but not in widescreen aspect ratio unless the original frame was cropped at the top and bottom. TOS was shot on 35mm film in standard academy ratio which corresponds to the standard definition television aspect ratio of 4:3. Thomprod (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Who Mourns for Adonais?" isn't anti-religious

Well at least not completely...

Didn't Kirk say to Apollo: "We don't need GODS. We find the ONE sufficient."

I think the article that states that this episode as anti-religious needs to be modified.

Agreed. When Kirk says "We" he is really speaking for monotheists. There are still polytheists in the Galaxy/Universe which he obviously doesn't speak for. Either way theist is the key word here meaning a belief is "Something". Anti-Religious to me would mean Atheist or a belief in no GOD. I don't think the episode deals with atheism. FrankWilliams 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Regular characters

The article leaves out the regular, faceless crewman from security whose job is to get killed early.

Han Solo

Do we really need so much of an explanation of the Star Wars "Who Shot First?" debate? It seems rather unnecissary in a Star Trek article. Kirby Oak 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so, so I was bold and trimmed it to a half of a sentence. I think it's enough to mention it and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more. -- Hawaiian717 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is fine. It is not long and overdrawn, just a few sentences; and it describes the CGI contraversy from a science-fiction perspective. It is a famous example and yes if users click on the link they will get much more details than the few sentences in the Star Trek article. In fact the few sentences serve as a good introduction to the "Han Shot First" link. FrankWilliams 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree, and I see someone else has reverted it back to my version (not that I mean to claim ownership). I saw the HTML comment and it seemed to me that the problem was with getting some of the details of the Han Shot First thing right and didn't see a problem eliminating that particular problem. Furthermore, from what I've seen of Remastered Trek so far (everything expect Space Seed) it doesn't look like this is going to be an issue with Remastered Trek anyway, so the less space we devote to it the better. It's worth mentioning as an initial concern by the fans but I don't think it needs more than a quick mention. And that's one of the great things about hypertext -- you can hyperlink to get more information rather than repeating it over and over. -- Hawaiian717 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It may yet still happen. The latest report has CBS Digital doing things like recomposing scenes and placing new actors (at the moment CBS Digital employees wanting their 15 minutes) into some scenes. It's quite possible we could see more substantial alterations. For example there's a filming error in Amok Time where Nimoy is visible in the background of a shot where he shouldn't be; I would imagine he'll be removed. There are also some continuity errors in dialogue and the like that I could also see them changing. I don't know if we'll see something as severe as Greedo Shooting First, but the signs are CBS Digital is planning to do more than just put a fresh coat of paint on the proceedings. 23skidoo 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as the new actors go, from what I've heard that has mostly been in enhancing the matte paintings. When they enhance or replace a matte painting shot, one of the things they might add is people seen walking or standing around. They're rather small in the frame and aren't a substantial change to anything from a plot perspective. I'm not arguing that they won't make more substantial "Greedo Shooting First" type edits; rather I just thought that there was too much discussion of it in this article. -- Hawaiian717 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of sentences is "not that much". The sentences give cohesion of the agrugments of "pro" and "against" as a good example. FrankWilliams 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the paragraph is original research and needs to go. Purist vs revisionist is POV language. Let us have some citations for whether people support this or not. Morwen - Talk 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is not pov. It is an explanation of the "pro" and "con" agruments. The source is my understanding of the material; not everything needs to another source. These points of view are also seriously diminish the quality of the articles by the constant removal of material that folks are adding which are useful and serves a purpose. These removals will also endup diminishing motivation to contribute to these articles. FrankWilliams 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"your understanding of the material" is Wikipedia:original research, which is specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policy. We don't want it. If you wish to express your opinion, perhaps you can find another outlet. If you can find criticism in the Star Trek magazines and fanzines, or a summary of the pro and con sides, great. If this is just your personal opinion, no. Morwen - Talk 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Remastered series" pruning

I have removed several portions of this topic in a article about ST:TOS because they were wandering into subjective discussions of issues that aren't directly about the subject, and included a good bit of unsourced material (i.e., original research). The removed material, if properly researched, may make for a reasonable article on Television series remastering, but does not belong in an article on one such remastered series. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious - why is Dochterman mentioned - although he may have a place to be mentioned elsewhere, he is not a part of the remastering effort underway by CBS/Paramount. If no one objects, I'll remove this in a few days. James 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Best episodes"

Someone please explain the notability and non-npovness of the EW list of best episodes. EW itself may be notable, but a list of their favorite episodes? So what? --EEMeltonIV 04:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with your assessment of notablity. it is topical, notable, and worthy of inclusion. inasmuch as the paragraph—albeit poorly titled—has been in the article for some time now, i should think the onus would be on you for justification of its removal. p.s. sorry about the yo-yo ma revert...that was totally an accident. --emerson7 | Talk 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a separate article on Trek Remastered

This might be stirring up a nest of bugs, but so many noticable changes have been made to Star Trek for the Remastered version, I wonder if it shouldn't be spun off into its own article. If nothing else, the controversy over it needs to be addressed (not doing so -- previous references have been removed, I see -- violates WP:NPOV) and it might be better to have such discussion in a separate article rather than adding more to the parent article. Alternately, such a spin-off article could be called "Reedited and remastered versions of Star Trek TOS" or something like that and also include discussion of syndication edits and Trek 2.0. Thoughts? 68.146.47.196 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my suggestion: Start this as a section in this article. Once it gets larger than one browser page (be reasonable about this), then split it off into its own article. If you think that you already have enough to start an article by itself, then still make your first edit as a section in this article. Once you get it written and have done a preview, if it looks good and is large enough, move it over to the new article, save it, then make a summary (with a link) in the section that you previewed. — Val42 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion

Someone is trying to delete the category Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go to the talk page, and try to keep this category open. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sulu's role in the second pilot episode

Physicist or mathematician? The article contradicts itself. --Damifb 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Other best Star Trek Top 10 lists

Other than the given Entertainment weekly Star Trek TOS list, are there any other published lists--in a major publication--on the Top 10 original episodes? I agreed with 9 of the 10 selections but think that perhaps 'This Side of Paradise' could have been replaced with another equally superior show such as 'The Tholian Web', 'Balance of Terror', or 'The Arena'? Leoboudv 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek on tvland.com - not available all countries

I visited tvland.com to view videoclips of Star Trek TOS but I received a notice that it was not available in my country.Please be patient because I cannot type very fast. I am a new user. Kathleen.wright5 Australia 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucille Ball and Star Trek

I added a reference to John Stanley's anecdote in his memoir of how Lucille Ball years afteward told him she stopped NBC from cancelling the show in 1966. The fan campaign to save the show after the second season is justly famous but Ball's role in there being a second season deserves mention.Dgabbard (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Remastered controversy

I still say we need to acknowledge the controversy being generated by Trek Remastered. Unfortunately all the references to said controversy are in blogs and news forums, and Wikipedia sourcing policy is still stuck in 1995 when it comes to allowing things like blogs to used as sources. Has there not been any printed articles or news articles on the controversy? It's obvious from looking at forums and newsgroups that a large number of Trekkies (from what I've seen primarily those over the age of 18) are opposed to the idea, or are at least upset that Paramount is letting the original episodes die with standard DVD instead of preserving them for high-def ... but if you post a discussion thread from TrekBBS or TrekWeb as a source, it'll just get deleted as an unsuitable source. What to do? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes now available on CBS

cbs has it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible cancellation of remastering

TrekToday.com posted a news report yesterday that indicated that due to Toshiba financing the remastering and it recent decision to abandon HD-DVD that further remastering projects (at least to the degree of altering the original episode content) has been cancelled. Has anyone seen another source to support this? Several sources are reporting that the HD-DVD release of the second remastered season has been cancelled, for obvious reasons, but TrekToday is the only source I've found that suggests the whole project is dead. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the remastered series is being continued. The only side effect of HD DVD's cancellation, is that remastered season 2 is only planned to hit the shelves in regular DVD, no Blu-ray (yet!). --Mike (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please add future comments to #Requested move.

I know I'm treading on sacred ground here, but I was thinking that this article probably shouldn't be called Star Trek: The Original Series, but instead something more like Star Trek (TV series) or Star Trek (1966 TV series) (Star Trek: The Animated Series also falls into this similar naming scheme). As far as I know, The Original Series appendix is only used for distinguishing it from everything else in the franchise (including the identically-titled animated series); although it appears on the DVD boxes and such, the show title is still simply Star Trek. When the remastered episodes were made, the opening credits do not put "The Original Series" on the bottom, it's still plain "Star Trek". Moving the article to a more accurate title seems logical. Thoughts? --Mike (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. The "Original Series" moniker is being used in promotions and the like, but on-screen title remains Star Trek. To muddy the waters is the fact there's an animated series, but I would go with calling it (1972 series). Obviously in both cases redirects would be in place under the "alternate titles." If things aren't confusing enough, Trek Remastered de facto not the Original Series, which has been retired by Paramount in favor of Remastered. It's an altered version of the original show (regardless what side of the remastering debate you're on, that fact can't be disputed - this isn't a case of cleaning up the picture, but wholesale replacement of scenes and creative work and music from the 1960s), so it may be necessary to create a separate article for the remastered series, too. 23skidoo (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very tricky issue because both titles are official. Star Trek: The Original Series is not an "informal title" as IMDb calls it, since that title is used on the DVDs, in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and many other official publications. IMDb and TV.com just call it Star Trek. StarTrek.com uses both titles. Most TOS novels, including those published in this century do not include the words The Original Series in their titles. It's really too bad Wikipedia doesn't have a definitive policy on the use of retronyms. Whatever title we choose should be used consistently because right now the article is titled Star Trek: The Original Series buth the infobox is titled Star Trek. That's not good and the animated series article has the same problem. Observatorr (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the name to "Star Trek (1966 TV series)". I don't know if this was the right thing to do but making a change is the only way to attract attention to this issue. Lets see if anyone changes it back. Observatorr (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's referred to as Star Trek and Star Trek: The Original Series on the Paramount website [5] but to my mind using the latter (with "the original series" in small letters) distinguishes it from both the franchise in general and the upcoming film. Observatorr, changes such as those you made to a lot of Trek articles shouldn't be made simply to make a point. Alastairward (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed section

How is this section at all notable?

Notable guest appearances

Guest Actors
Actor/Actress Role Episode Known as/for
Ricardo Montalbán Khan Noonien Singh "Space Seed" Fantasy Island as Mr. Roarke
Clint Howard Balok "The Corbomite Maneuver" Brother of actor/director Ron Howard and trek alum
Ted Cassidy Voice of Balok, Ruk, Voice of Gorn "The Corbomite Maneuver", "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", and "Arena". Notable voice actor, portrayed Lurch in The Addams Family.
Fred Williamson Anka "The Cloud Minders" Assorted Blaxploitation Films
Keye Luke Governor Cory "Whom Gods Destroy" Kung Fu (1972) as Master Po and Enter the Dragon as Mr. Han (voice)
Teri Garr Roberta Lincoln "Assignment: Earth" Young Frankenstein, Tootsie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Melvin Belli Gorgan "And the Children Shall Lead" Lawyer known as "The King of Torts"
Klingons
John Colicos Governor Kor: Dahar Master "Errand of Mercy" Battlestar Galactica (1978) as Count Baltar
Michael Ansara Captain Kang "Day of the Dove" Broken Arrow (1978) as Chief Cochise, and the voice of Mr. Freeze in Batman: The Animated Series (1992)
William Campbell Captain Koloth, IKS Gr'oth "The Trouble with Tribbles" Several horror B-movies, as well as roles in movies like Love Me Tender with Elvis Presley and The High and Mighty with John Wayne

It seems full of synthesis (who says Montalban's most famous role is that of Roarke?) and non-notable connections. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if this monster of an article can survive deletion twice, then that small section could probably stay. Alastairward (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was -- move back to original location. As the name has been stable and there does not seem to have been a consensus for the recent moves and as the arguments for the different names are finally balanced, I am moving the article back to its stable name. Do not move it again without reaching a consensus through another WP:RM move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek (original series) → Star Trek: The Original Series — Move this article back to its original location

I listed this article on the Requested moves page. There has already been some discussion above and on the Star Trek WikiProject talk page. In order to centralize discussion, please add any future comments here. — OranL (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Support; Let me be first to support any move (first here at least). The series is referred to as both on the Paramount website [6] and as TOS on the DVD box sets [7] I have. It seems prudent to refer to it as the latter to distinguish between the franchise, the series and the upcoming movie. Alastairward (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It may not have been clear when starting the discussion: this article is currently located at Star Trek (original series). The requested move would place the article back at its original location of Star Trek: The Original Series. I have added that to the top of the section. — OranL (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Support: CBS/Paramount calls this series Star Trek, or Star Trek: The Original Series to set it apart in the franchise, most prominently on VHS and DVD. Since we can't have four articles just called Star Trek - this series, the cartoon, the new movie, and the franchise - it would be best to use official, commonly accepted titles to separate them, where possible. Star Trek: The Original Series fills the bill here, so using a third, "invented" title for this article seems both confusing and completely unnecessary. RobWill80 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, a change to support then! I would prefer it to be Star Trek: The Original Series, to fit with what Paramount have on their own website and packaging. One thing though, shouldn't the debate be whether Observatorr's edit should stand and not whether we should go back. I don't think any consensus was reached for his move in the first place. Alastairward (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The reason this is listed on VHS and DVDs as "The Original Series" is because disambiguation is needed outside of Wikipedia following all the spinoffs, serializations etc. that have come about. The reason for the external change, thus, is not a renaming of the original series, official or otherwise. What is proposed here is to follow the format of the external disambiguation when we have our own consistent disambiguation naming conventions which don't follow that outside format. By setting "original series" off in parentheses, lowercase, we flag that "Star Trek" is the name, and we are disambiguating it. By making it "Star Trek: The Original Series" we are implying that is the name of the topic, which it's not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment, are you sure about that? The use of capitals by Paramount strongly implies a renaming. Alastairward (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. CBS uses the disambiguator in some places and it seems clear they are distinguishing it from other versions of the show. What would you have them do? They need to make clear which version they are referring to in a title that tells little for such a widespread franchise. They also use the regular old name in other places where by context (such as that where there is an image which disambiguates for them) which show it is is not likely to be unclear. See, for example, [8], [9], [10]. WP:UCN trumps anyway. The disparity here is not a close call. Searching for ""star trek" kirk" -"Star Trek: The Original Series" (I use kirk to avoid false positives with other versions of the show but this search likely underestimates because of that limiter) returns just under 33 million Google hits. "Star Trek: The Original Series" returns just under 600 thousand.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, this article should be at Star Trek as patently the primary topic, not at Star Trek (original series), and the current Star Trek target should be at Star Trek (franchise), with appropriate hatnotes at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply; I see merit in that (although I wouldn't use plain Google results to argue a point), although I wouldn't be sure at all about Star Trek pointing to the main page for the entire franchise. Alastairward (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I would disagree with moving this article to "Star Trek", as the cartoon and the new movie are so named. The double standard wouldn't sit comfortably with me, and I'm happy with the franchise article staying there - The saying "Greater than the sum" springs to mind. Moving on to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, WP:NAME indicates that WP:NC-TV would override WP:UCN. The guide would say that this article should be "Star Trek (TV series)", with TAS becoming "Star Trek (animated TV series)", or adding the year they premiered to their titles. The guide in question doesn't appear to make allowances for the term "(original series)". However, I don't see how "Star Trek: The Original Series" would be disqualified from being used as the title of this article. If WP:D is followed, option 1 here would seem to allow it. RobWill80 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the move back to Star Trek: The Original Series. The name of the show was "Star Trek", and only after the sequels were created was there a need to disambiguate the title. — OranL (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Star Trek (1966 TV series)

Star Trek (original series) → Star Trek (1966 TV series)

I propose that the location of the article be changed to "Star Trek (1966 TV series)", in accordance with other disambiguated articles, and since "Star Trek (original series)" seems to be an unconventional disambiguation. This allows the franchise page should stay at "Star Trek", as it should in accordance with other articles (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica) with franchise names that are the same as a name of one or more of the works in the franchise. — OranL (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit soon given we haven't come to a consensus about the above? "The Original Series" is used by Paramount to differentiate between the 1966 series and the franchise and other series, it would make some sense to include it in the article title. Alastairward (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This section does not stop discussion in the parent section. It's been a few days since the original move was requested, and I think that more options need to be discussed to see what kind of support there is for other proposed titles. I just thought that it would be easier to start a new section for discussion of this new proposal, rather than losing focus of the topic in the parent section. — OranL (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If the aim of this proposal is to conform to Wikipedia standards, then I'd suggest including a request to move Star Trek: The Animated Series. The same principles would apply to both that article and this one. RobWill80 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: The first proposal is allowable, and appears to be more preferable under WP:D. However, I'd support this suggestion over leaving the article where it currently is. RobWill80 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Guest stars

I heard that Beatrice Arthur starred in the series, but I find no mention of her in the individual episode synopses. Or did I miss it?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Must have been a mistake. A quick search at IMDb shows no involvement in Star Trek-related media, but it does show that she was in something called The Star Wars Holiday Special. — OranL (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was the Star Wars Holiday Special. She had nothing to do with Star Trek. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of Slash?

It is outrageous that there isn’t even the slightest mention of the slash fiction spawned by many of its straight female viewers. The main reason why Star Trek was so popular in the first place and had stayed on air as long as it did is because women were tuning in to see the latest addition of Kirk and Spock’s relationship. We live in a more and more tolerant society where race, sexuality, color and creed matters little. Straight women are increasingly attracted to slash fiction day by day, and hiding that fact by sweeping it under the rug and pretending that it doesn’t happen is just shameful. Astronauttothemoon (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? — OranL (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Find a reliable source that says slash fanfic writers kept the show on air and made it popular, then. Davhorn (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Gladly! There happens to be an article about the exact same thing in a little website called….WIKIPEDIA! In it a lot of references are being made about women liking slash so much that they helped keep a lot of the TV shows/movie on just to see future development of any romantic relationship between two or more male characters; and also with women’s obsession of slash no matter where they are in the world. However, no mention of it is made in this article even though generations of women have been enjoying it and will keep on enjoying it as long as there is humanity and females. The article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction
Enjoy! Astronauttothemoon (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:SYNTHESIS. — OranL (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dept. Color Identification with Cast

In this revision, I added red, blue and gold to the rank column of the cast table. It seems appropriate to not only identify their rank but their department service color. Especially with the new movie coming out and this being such a major identifier as to the characters. No where else in wiki does this information appear. My changes were reverted once, so I improved them. In the event they are reverted again, I put this argument forth to general wiki consensus as to whether they should be kept and improved upon.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree with what you have been doing, and I have answered here.Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove Rank From List Of Characters or add Department info as well

The rank of the characters is completely trivial issue for understanding them and falls under Wiki's rules for avoiding in-universe trivia. How in the world does the fact that "head nurse" Chapel is a lieutenant aid the understanding of the character. If the title is part of the character's identity include it in the character description, e.g. James T. Kirk, "Capatin of the Enterprise". Further it is arbitrary to conclude that ranks are worthy of mention when the department division under which they serve is not, whether the use of colour is employed or not. The use of a table is completely unwarranted there in any event as the descriptions are mostly narratives. Bullet points would do more effective in terms of legibility and navigation, with the elimination of trivial elements. If anyone disagrees with the removal of rank, then it certainly enhances the character profile to add their service departments, e.g. Command, Support and Sciences as I have done here. Finally, to you Alastairward, this undo quote from you sums up the prevailing attitude here at Wiki, and the is no excuse for the way you have behaved in dealing with any of the "good faith" revisions I have made (a phrase which you have clearly twisted): "Reverted good faith edits ... Assuming good faith here, however unlikely it is." -Alastairward. You lobbed the first grenade following my first edit and there is little I can evidently do to salve the situation. Nevertheless, I completely disagree with your arbitrary application of the Wiki rules in the community much less sticking your nose in other issues (i.e. stalking me to a private post re:Douglasnicol. It is deplorable behavior indicative of some kind of vengeance on your part.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

More than anything else, your suggestion that you would "start a reversion war" in another talk page says enough about your editing intentions. I never suggested that the colours were trivia, check out my talk page entries and edit summaries (little thing about Wikipedia, once you save a page, its committed to the page history, I've caught other editors out with that one). I've always said that it simply made the page look ugly and hinders navigation, which it does.
Why not be bold yourself and merge the contents of the column into the character descriptions instead of editing to make a point (which is also frowned upon)? Alastairward (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There is more than one editor in Wikipedia. In particular I have been dealing with you and one other who have raised polar objections. Since you have access to my edit history I would assume you have taken note of that. Nevertheless, EEMIV in particular has made a point of decrying the use of colour as trivia. So who am I supposed to listen to as the newbie here? To EEMIV's credit he has at least attempted to explain the rational with more than the colours are "garish". Believe it or not, I have listened to everyone's opinions and taken into account the motivations behind the often rude, curt responses. As for "what kind of editor I am", you come out of the blue without any introduction telling me a specific article which actually discusses colour right in it and tell me it is not appropriate to have examples of the colour when they use non-standard terms like "flame" to describe them. That is the arrogance I objected to. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater when I am actually trying to engage in conversation not just a tennis match of edits. In the end it is moot since EEMIV declared the whole section trivial and deleted the whole discussion of colour. Now who is more right? You, Me, or him? There are no punitive retaliatory edits taking place here, as you wrongly assumed, there is merely consistency applied to articles I was working on. What goes for one edit, must apply to another, or Wiki will never be anything more than a collection of disparate articles with some common formatting guidelines. Nevertheless, point taken and I think the best bet is to just leave it alone and let time heal all wounds. Though it would be nice in the interim for some other editors to weigh in with respect to each article and not be influenced by all edits across many articles taken as a whole, the position for each change is justified on each instance and as I said before I have since conceded certain points.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to accuse me of being uncivil, please be aware that it has happened twice before, and I am pleased to say that I have been exonerated (see here and here)
EEMIV is a polite and considered editor in my experience, I'm sure he would be happy to discuss an issue he raised with you on his talk page. Since it is not something I myself am involved in, I don't see why my editing has to automatically reflect what you two discuss.
As you can see from the edit history of the Star Trek articles you edited to include strange colours, my opinion that the colours you chose were garish and unnecessary is a shared one, there's consistency for you straight away.
Edit as you see fit, if you feel that opinion has swayed against you, don't feel discouraged, I certainly wasn't when I started here first.
It might be an idea if you registered here too, it indicates an intent (IMO) to abide by how wikipedia works. We would also have a single talk page on which to address your edits. Alastairward (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I never said EEMIV was not polite. He was the only one who attempted to rationally explain his point, however stubborn. The problem is you tracked down what was a "private" post to another editor about a completely different article pertaining to changes EEMIV was insisting on. You were way out of line to do that. Likewise, EEMIV seems to have just as many edits under his belt as you do and he is suggesting changes with references to applicable WIKI doctrine. You simply express your opinion. So when I follow his advice, you revert them because you don't agree. You know what? Perhaps you should wait a week and see if anybody else reverts them? Since you seem to have targeted me, I would suggest that there is more at work in your clicking "undo" than simply preserving the good of Wiki. Since nobody else seems to care at present we may never know. It would also seem that while EEMIV is eager to bully me around he is not the fortitude enough for taking on the Star Trek gang on the same issues. Lastly, stop saying I picked "strange" colours. You know as well as I do, that those are the 3 primary colours used to identify the departments in Trek, both in the "real-world" as well as the "in-universe" one. And honestly, you bring that up like slecting better colours would have changed the argument at all – you would have still clicked undo. Therefore, having left the colour issue behind for the moment, I continue to assert EEMIV's position that the inclusion of RANK in the tables is unnecessary, violates WIKI standards for "in-universe" trivia, makes the unnecessary table more complicated and harder to read and does not provide any "real-world" value to the reader.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should realise that there is no "private" messaging on wikipedia. Anything you put on a talk page, user page or article is there for everyone to see. It's in the page history and the contributions list for your various IP addresses (Here's my own]]). If there is something you don't want other users to see on Wikipedia, then don't post it. Once you save a page, the edit is saved in the edit history for good.
An edit count is no indicator of any sort of "skill" in editing Wikipedia, a great deal of mine recently have been to counter vandalism for example (see my contributions page above). I never said that my opinion is final or that I look on any of the articles I edit as "mine". Again, see my contributions, I have been accused of that before and found most certainly not guilty.
I edit a variety of pages on wikipedia, whatever happens to take my interest at the time. Since you have only edited Star Trek and Space1999 articles at present, it may seem like you're being "targetted", but I would beg to differ and again point you to my contributions page to show you why.
I always assume good faith unless a user declares, as you have done, in a talk page that they intend a campaign of "reversionism". You seem to have latched onto the the inclusion of rank as a counter to my lack of favour with your own edits. I will ignore that and concentrate on the content of your argument. The table of characters is not hindered by a simple inclusion of character information as it was by the addition of the colours you added. If you deem it to be trivia, please indicate what you believe to be the limits of trivia and what information should be necessary to understand the characters and their place in the series.
Also, you might perhaps explain yourself here; "It would also seem that while EEMIV is eager to bully me around he is not the fortitude enough for taking on the Star Trek gang on the same issues." That doesn't make sense, are you accusing EEMIV of being uncivil? Or that editors of Star Trek editors are ganging up on him? And what do you mean by "Since nobody else seems to care at present we may never know"? There are four (if I count correctly) editors who have disagreed with your edits at present, are you trying to describe this disagreement as some sort of vendetta against you by me? Alastairward (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Classic" vs. "TOS"

When did the retronym "The Original Series" actually come up, and when did it become "official" (or at least predominant)? I remember that the series had also broadly been called "Classic" for a couple of years after the appearance of "the next generation". --Bad Randolph (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe Paramount started using "The Original Series" on its website and in other promotions around the time they released it to DVD, and also began using "The Animated Series" to refer to the cartoon version. Whether TOS originated then I couldn't say. It's definitely something Paramount has adopted, so it is official, at any rate, even if it's not an on-screen title (ditto TAS). 68.146.86.244 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I own the collector's edition of Star Trek: Judgment Rites which includes a VHS tape of the episode "City on the Edge of Forever". It's from 1993 and does not have TOS written on its cover. The cassette's label has Star Trek: The Television Series written on it. Davhorn (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Paramount and CBS have been using "The Original Series" in their promotional information for at least the new Bluray and DVD releases, and if memory serves, even longer. But, at the very least, I can cite their current press releases and artwork:
[1] http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/feature008.html
I would cite something directly on their artwork site, but to verify it, everyone would need to have an account with Paramount - which I doubt all of you have. These pictures, and the press release are directly from Paramount's and CBS' marketing department. If anyone has a direct link to elsewhere, please feel free to remove the link above and replace it with a different "citation"
To my knowledge and in my experience, the "TOS" abbreviation has only been used in their communications to us as an abbreviation for email/contact summaries.
Hope that clarifies the use of the term. And yes, I believe older promotions did reference "Classic" Trek at some point, though I do not know if that was at the behest of Paramount/CBS or at the decision of those advertising their properties (unlike the "The Original Series" reference, which was a definitive choice by Paramount Home Entertainment and CBS Home Entertainment.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do people abbreviate?

"spearheaded by a collection of SF fans of the show"
How hard is it, in an encyclopedic setting, for people to type out the entire word? I have seen this in several articles with all sorts of word combinations. Does this mean San Franciscan fans? Special feature fans? Single female fans? It is sloppy and lazy to write an article like this. I took the 5 seconds needed to change it to "science fiction" fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.102.100 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Term "Number One" First used in the pilot

I am suprised no one has mentioned or noticed this? The pilot, which didn't have Shatner, was more like Star Trek: The new Generation.68.249.108.35 (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really notable. I'm sure number one is a fairly common nickname for a ship's XO. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek remastered in region 2

In Germany and in the United Kindom "Star Trek Remastered" wasn't released as slimline editions, but in steelbook cases (each containing half a season in Germany and an entire season in the UK).--Dvd-junkie (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote at beginning

Was watching original series and noticed that Kirk's voice over at the beginning says "space a final frontier..." not "space the final frontier." Took us by suprise. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.19.253 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Can you confirm what you heard? Alastairward (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope(2), at least in my copy of TOS remastered, (just watching "The Corbomite maneuver") ) it´s definitely "THE final frontier" 87.145.109.42 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Remastered series

The article says "If the producers chose to reformat the entire show for the 16:9 ratio", but it is now showing in 16:9 SD on CBS Action in the UK on Freesat. [2] Chris97 (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's Chris' link (no reflist on the talk page you see). All it says though is that its remastered, are you sure it's not chopped somehow? The Blu-Ray release I thought had it in 4:3 ratio. Alastairward (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-type

I am re-typing the end of This section, specifically the Nichelle Nichols quote and the following paragraph. It is apparent, this part of the section was written on a word-processor and copy/pasted to the page (due to the micro dots between the sentences). I am re-typing it word for word and should have it ready to move over tomorrow. The reason for this post is I am making one change, if anyone does not like the change feel free to change it, back to the wat it was or whatever. The reason I am making this change is purely cosmetic.

I am changing the Quote format from a wiki box type format

to

Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode count

Just wondering where the count of 79 came from. There's The Cage, 29 episodes in Season 1 (counting each episode of The Menagerie as a separate episode), 26 in season 2 and 24 in season 3, 80 in all. Do we need a cite for the number other than the list of episodes? WikiuserNI (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Menagerie, while it is two parts, does not have separate episode numbers (16A and 16B, respectively). That's according to what Paramount has always listed on their episode guides. The Cage has always been part of that 79 episode count as episode #1. It's irrelevant to count it twice. Nicholasm79 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As I noted on your talk page, StarTrek.com notes only 78. Is there a link to the Paramount episode guide? WikiuserNI (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What the ....? "The Cage has always been part of that 79 episode count as episode #1"? In List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes it's not, and there are 79 episodes plus two pilot episodes making the total 81.85.217.21.72 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're horribly misreading that list. The 2nd pilot is marked twice in that list. Also, the numbering is on the number of aired episodes, not the number of produced episodes. Nicholasm79 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if multiple articles have been found and cited that 79 is the number. I think we can put this issue to bed. Nicholasm79 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • First of all, it's inappropriate to make snarky comments in the hidden text of an article as was done here and here. Second, reliable sources have been found to verify that there were indeed 79 episodes produced. The example above, 78 from StarTrek.com in no way disputes this number, the source clearly qualifies its number with the wording "for a total of three seasons and 78 episodes (counting the two-part "The Menagerie" only once, and not counting the first commissioned pilot, "The Cage," which did not air during this time).". The purported source for 80 episodes is misleading, it does not say there were 80 episodes, it says there was a syndication package that included the 1983 "Star Trek Memories" as an extra show to increase the package to 80 'episodes' - but "Star Trek Memories" is not one of TOS's episodes; it was merely added to the syndication package to make that package an even 80 shows - if it can even be reliably sourced, the IMDb source does not verify that content and I've removed it. Dreadstar ☥ 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
To alleviate the concern over the 78/79 episode question without complicating the text, I added a quote to the startrek.com reference: [11]. Dreadstar ☥ 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It just remains confusing in a plain episode count to read that the two parts of the Menagerie are counted as one, that's all. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I know it looks strange, but that's just the way it always has been. If you know the circumstances behind why the two-part story was done in the first place, it would make more sense why it's perceived by some as one episode (e.g. the frame scenes were filmed in one week and gave time to the production for more scripts to be completed, etc.) Nicholasm79 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll bow to the cites :) WikiuserNI (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GOCE

cropping for widescreen

From the article:

While the CGI shots have already been mastered in a 16:9 aspect ratio for future applications, they are currently broadcast in the US – along with the live-action footage – in the original 4:3 aspect ratio TV format to respect the show's original composition. If the producers chose to reformat the entire show for the 16:9 ratio, live-action footage would have to be recropped, widening the frame to the full width of the 35 mm negatives while trimming its height by nearly 30%. Although this would add a marginal amount of imagery on the sides, much more would need to be eliminated from the tops and bottoms of the frames to fit.

The paragraph has no citation, so I don't know where the "nearly 30%" figure comes from.

I tried to compute it using my own (limited) knowledge of how these things work, and this is what I came up with: Assuming the film is in the Academy ratio of 1.375:1 and cropped for TV to 1.333:1, the widescreen version would have a width of 1.375 and a height of 1.375 × 9 ÷ 16 = 0.773. That means the height would be trimmed by 22.7%. If my calculations are accurate, the amount cropped would be 29.3% of the new height, but the construction "trimming its height by nearly 30%" implies that the amount trimmed is nearly 30% of the original height. So I suspect that the article is in error and should read "nearly 23%" instead of "nearly 30%." Can somebody either confirm or refute my analysis? Of course, it would be nice if somebody can come up with a more appropriate source than Capedia's calculations on the Talk page. Capedia (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest an elimination of any mention of a percentage. We know it would have to be cropped, that should be good enough, no? Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur, unless cited, we're just speculating. Even if the calculations above are correct, its still speculation. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

While well-intended, several of the additions and changes done last night by User:98.67.107.6 bend or break MOS, appropriate structuring, WP:OR. I'm off to work, so if anyone has some time to give this a thorough look-see, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll poke tomorrow-ish. --EEMIV (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to revert, but I'm not sure how to do a mass revert with several revisions by other users in between. Can someone else handle that? Nicholasm79 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure [although I haven't looked super-closely] that a blanket revert is necessary -- maybe just a clean-up copyedit. The paragraph shifts make it a bit hard to discern the scope of all the changes; I might just go through edit-by-edit. --EEMIV (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(One) parody and fan productions

I separated out the online availability of the show's episodes and fan productions, as they are substantially different things. The online availability would stand alongside the broadcast history and syndication. The fan productions are not produced by studios (they are distributed for free to avoid trading on Paramount/CBS's toes) and have gained something of a notability of their own (fan production article).

I'm not sure though why a single studio production (the SNL sketch) should fall under the fan productions or be included alongside them. They are pretty much different kettles of fish and the editor merging them back hasn't offered a real reason for doing so. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give exactly what policies and guidelines you are referring to. Dreadstar ☥ 00:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty straightforward, when a section refers to something quite specific, fan productions as above, why merge unrelated material into that section? If the SNL sketch is so notable, why does it not stand alone? If, as a cite suggests, it's one of the best parodies, why not mention other notable parodies alongside it in it's own unique section? WikiuserNI (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And just like that, the other parodies appear as if by magic. I think that might suffice to cover something notable in sufficient depth. WikiuserNI (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And the simple matter of making the material clearer and more accessible doesn't come into this at all? Now we can have a section covering notable parodies and one covering fan made materials, whatever could be so very wrong with that? WikiuserNI (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Truly, it is magic that I seem to have missed the first time around, please accept my apologies for my...um...well, ok, anything jerk-like from me...and my applause for your excellent parody-additions. Dreadstar ☥ 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the Third Opinion request made at the Third Opinion project as it appears that the editors here have settled the editing dispute listed there. If the dispute continues, please feel free to re–list the dispute. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

TransporterMan, thanks. WikiuserNI (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks TransporterMan! Dreadstar ☥ 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks to you too, WikiuserNI. Nice job. Dreadstar ☥ 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you too, I'm glad we're back on track now. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Music

The paragraph in the theme song section implies very strongly that Alexander Courage left the show because of his treatment by Roddenberry over the theme. Is that true? Is there a source for that? Courage recorded scores for Star Trek season 1 after the pilots (at least Naked Time). He was unavailable for season 2 because he was working on Dr Doolittle; he has said in interviews that he would have continued on Star Trek, but Doolittle took up all his time. He returned to Star Trek for season 3. The record is inconsistent with the implication in the article. If that can't be sourced, the section should be rewritten. Jim Hardy (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the source used in the article simply says that Courage simply declined to talk further part in the series. Which could be explained by your note above that he had other commitments, not that he did so in anger at Roddenberry's cut of the profits. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As successful as Courage was, it wouldn't be a surprise he was too busy. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked my copy of Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman. Page 185 in my copy has the following to say about Courage's departure. It says pretty clearly that as Jim says above, work on Dr Dolittle kept Courage from working on more than two episodes of the first season. But then the book goes on to say that, owing to the royalties issue, "it's no wonder Sandy Courage lost all enthusiasm for the series and liking for Gene Roddenberry. Despite my efforts to convince him to score second-season episodes, Sandy never returned to Star Trek." It hints that Courage didn't return due to the royalties issue. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That quote is slightly inaccurate. Courage did return to score two 3rd season episodes. "The Enterprise Incident" and "Plato's Stepchildren." But, yes, he didn't score any in the 2nd season. (It's completely accurate if it's Solow talking and not Justman, because Solow was gone right at the end of the 2nd season. I don't have my copy of the book near me at the present time or I'd check.) Nicholasm79 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It was Bob Justman who mentioned trying to coax Courage back. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Show Introduction

I'd like to learn more about the opening Introduction, spoken by Shatner during the music at the start of each show:

Space: the final frontier... etc..

Who wrote it? It's really a masterpiece, lyrical, memorable, succinct. It encompasses so much about the show, and the spirit of the times when it was made. Sure would like to see a section or article expanding about this famous poem. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sensei Okuda?

Describing Okuda's actions as "remastering" seems to me mistaken, if not deceptive. "Reimagining" opticals & adding actors strikes me more like colorizing. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what is really meant is "re-imaging". I "re-imagine" things all day long. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Could be my spellchecking is bad. :/ Even so, it reads like Okuda's changing & not just "cleaning up", which means the "remastered" "ST" isn't Gene's anymore, it's Okuda's, & that smacks of colorizing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You may well be right. I just hope both remain available so the folks that want the cool old stuff can still get it and the folks that want the cool new stuff can get that, too.
As much lamenting-the-budget as I read occurred during TOS production, I can't imagine Gene would reject modern FX--he may well have welcomed them; we'll never know for sure. Personally, as long as they don't change the story or the main actors, I'm fine with it. (I have some colorized stuff--I watch it with the chroma level set to zero, which gives me monochrome and works for me.)
If you ask me, the real travesty is what the cable channels do to them when they air them: Since a 52-minute program doesn't give them nearly enough time to stuff commercials down our throats, they cut out parts of the show. That sucks, IMHO.*
Truly, though, it's really neither here nor there; I don't think the rightsholders are going to ask us.
* This is purely my personal opinion and, perhaps, doesn't even belong here. I hope The Cabal doesn't take me out to the woodshed...
— UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"I don't think the rightsholders are going to ask us." No, they're not. :( I'm a purist: the original artist's execution shouldn't be tampered with. (Can you imagine "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" colorized? :o :o :o )
I'm also in agreement on stripping. The syndicated shows are so cheap, buying rights to sycle thru them enough times should more than pay for the investment. Or buy half-hour shows (more ads, less hassle on scheduling). These days, with intro & tag summaries, you're down to more like 45min of actual program... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Move

I think we should move this to Star Trek (TV series) as it was not known as The Original series. Sure, there are several movies and spinoffs, but i think (TV series) can easily distinguish itself as the original. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:47 28 May 2011 (UTC)

TOS is the accepted designation for the 1960's series. Mlpearc powwow 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Original pitch

Dunno if this document is already referenced, or whether it doesn't offer anything new, but thought I'd share: I've had this initial ST pitch bookmarked for a while and it's a neat, quick read. --EEMIV (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a legitimate document then it should be incorporated into the Creation and development section some way, or as an external link or further reading. Mlpearc powwow 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Would it be a good idea to include a Chain of Command for TOS? I ask because different sources I have found state different things. A Reliable Source with the definitive answer would be a good thing. One site began Kirk - Spock - Scott - Uhura, while another began Kirk - Spock - Scott - Sulu - Uhura. And then there is DeSalle! Is there a definitive Reliable Source? And what about other series too? Picard - Riker - Data - um... Thomas J. Dawson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

Re-mastered episodes

I came searching for information on the newly re-mastered episodes with the cgi space graphics and special effects. I'm of the opinion that the singing during the opening credits has been re-done from the original. Wouldn't this be the correct page to have a section on the re-mastered episodes? Or do they have their own page? Akuvar (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See TOS Remastered. "Main title music re-recorded in digital stereo; Shatner’s original ‘final frontier’ monolog remastered". Barsoomian (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Not only was the title music re-recorded, but it was also standardized; the original first season titles did not feature the "opera singer", but now after the remastering, all episodes have the opera singer. Sort of like how Hanna-Barbera stripped the original opening credits from the Flintstones' first two seasons and replaced them with the later "Meet the Flintstones" theme song; audiences never heard the original theme music again until someone effectively "unremastered" the remaster. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP editor

72.37.171.116/71.101.144.220 has repeatedly removed mention of Bjo Trimble and her husband as the organizers of the letter campaign in TOS's second season, despite existing cites. I have added another cite with no effect. Will an editor temporarily protect the page, please? Ylee (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean, "Will an administrator temporarily..."? The best place to request this is probably WP:RPP. The IP editors involved are also blatantly violating WP:3RR, so an entry on WP:AN3 seems appropriate, too. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Salyut 5 and the Star trek outfits

I could understand that the Salyut 5 crew outfits might have been influenced by star trek, and could be researched, but the ears ? how does that work ? see for yourself Penyulap ☏ 07:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not intended to be the 23rd century

I propose deleting this paragraph's reference to the 23rd century.

In 1964, Gene Roddenberry, a longtime fan of science fiction, drafted a proposal for a science-fiction television series that he called Star Trek. This was to be set on board a large interstellar spaceship in the 23rd century ...

As I understand it, stardates were invented in order to avoid committing to a specific time frame, and in fact, according to the Stardate article, the writers' bible suggested that the show took place in the twenty-second century.

It was not until much later (The Next Generation?) that the Gregorian date of the original series was established to be in the twenty-third century, and therefore this was not a part of Roddenberry's original proposal.

75.15.122.209 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If the source said differently. Which I can't tell because it is a dead link. Then what you said could have been constituted as original research. It is understood how it works now but it doesn't mean that the original plans could have been different. I will see if I can do more research on this. Jhenderson 777 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that there were references within the show that explained time, although I can't think of any off the top of my head and I could be dead wrong. Usually references to past events, (ie.."300" years ago), type references, but again I could be dead wrong. I guess I get to watch some ST today. Try "Space Seed" "Tomorrow is Yesterday" "The City on the Edge of Forever" "Assignment Earth" and "Metamorhosis". Al dealing with events of the past. JOJ Hutton 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There is and I cited one. The article seems to be correct. Jhenderson 777 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with these references. No one is arguing that it is set in the 23rd century, and your references prove that, but what editor 75.15 was saying that Gene Rodenberry's concept may not have had anything to do with the 23rd century. The section is about the creation of the show, what Rodenberry was thinking, not the timeline that was eventually established. I think if an editor were to find a reference stating that Rodenberry envisioned a series set in the 22nd century, it should say that under this section. Akuvar (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The fundamentals of "when" and "where".

Hi there,

There are a few standard categories of information that any article about anything should answer immediately, in the opening section: "Who", "what", "when", and "where". For example:

Deadwood (TV series)

This article features the sentence: "The show is set in the 1870s in Deadwood, South Dakota". Likewise, our Star Trek articles should specify this information.

Incidentally, in the case of TV shows, these categories apply to the real-life-production itself, and to the story—but that's another story.

InternetMeme (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I think you need to reliably cite the date for this fictional entry in the Trek universe. "Deadwood" being semi-historical can be firmly rooted to a certain year(s), but this show was not until (I beleive) an episode of "Voyager" specified the end year of the Kirk's Enterprise's five year mission (2270, iirc). Until it is cited, you may get your edits reverted. Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It also needs to be pertinent, it already states that it is a science fiction series about a starship. The Deadwood reference helps a reader understand more about the series, saying that star trek was set in the milky way galaxy really does little to enhance the reader's understanding of the show. Akuvar (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you can't think of a way that location knowledge could help enhance a reader's understanding of the show doesn't mean that it can't enhance a reader's understanding. For instance, many viewers I've talked to thought that Star Trek was set all over the universe, and not confined to the Milky Way. It also helps foster an interest in space in general. Knowing the names of parts of the universe increases their intrigue.
I would argue that knowing the names of the main characters is irrelevant, and doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the show. But that is still fundamental information; part of the whole "who, what, when, where" basic information set.
InternetMeme (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Natal Charts of Star Trek Characters, TOS

NAME: Dr. McCoy M. Scott James T. Kirk H. Sulu P. Chekov N. Uhura
DOB: January 20, 2218 [3] March 3, 2222 [3] March 26, 2229 [3] June 24, 2230 [3] Sept. 19, 2241 [3] January 19, 2233 [3]
Weekday: Wednesday Sunday Thursday Thursday Sunday Saturday
Sun Aquarius Pisces Aries Cancer Virgo Capricorn
Moon Scorpio Scorpio Aries Sagittarius Pisces Taurus
Mercury Aquarius Pisces Aries Cancer Virgo Capricorn
Venus Aquarius Capricorn Aries Gemini Virgo Aquarius
Mars Aquarius Aries Pisces Virgo Virgo Aquarius
Jupiter Libra Aquarius Virgo Libra Virgo Sagittarius
Saturn Scorpio Sagittarius Pisces Pisces Leo Aries
Uranus Virgo Libra Scorpio Scorpio Capricorn Sagittarius
Neptune Gemini Gemini Gemini Cancer Cancer Capricorn
Pluto Libra Libra Libra Libra Scorpio Scorpio


References

  1. ^ http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/feature008.html
  2. ^ http://cbsaction.co.uk/shows.php?program=79703
  3. ^ a b c d e f Mandel, Geoffrey (1980). USS Enterprise Officer's Manual. 201W 18th St. Apt 20A, New York, NY. 10011: Interstellar Associates. p. 21. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Notes

I'm posting this table here on the talkpage for user interest, not for the article. For those who understand it, it's very interesting trivia, just too esoteric for the article.
The data was pulled from "Planet Positions from Swiss Ephemeris." software. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Desilu

"Ball was the first woman in television to be head of a production company: Desilu, the company that she and Arnaz formed. After their divorce, Ball bought out Arnaz's share of the studio, and she proceeded to function as a very active studio head." I assume, then, that it was Lucille Ball who first made the decision to produce Star Trek. If so, that's worth mentioning, don't you think? Rosekelleher (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. I think it just needs a credible source and reference to be included. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think I heard it mentioned in the "Science Fiction" episode of PBS's Pioneers of Television series. — Cbbkr (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent additional content - article getting too big?

I've noticed that recent additions to the article are making it extremely long, and although it is interesting information, I question if it belongs here.

There is a long opening paragraph under "characterizations" that deals with the actors and what they did prior to Star Trek. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article let alone that that section.
The section "character's appearances as cameos on later series" is extremely long and is really pushing the limits as to belonging in this article.

Does anyone want to weigh in/vote on these sections? Akuvar (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is the non-free infobox image replaceable? If not, File:Star Trek TOS logo.svg would be, logically, nothing compared to the title card, right? --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for intro

Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia so I just wanted to leave this here as a note to myself and solicitation of others' thoughts before I go about rewriting the introduction. Here's "my" version:


Star Trek is an American science fiction television series created by Gene Roddenberry that follows the adventures of the starship USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and its crew. Set during an unspecified time in the future (insert optional note about stardates and 2260s), it centres around Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), first officer Spock (Leonard Nimoy), and chief medical officer Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley).

The series was produced by Desilu Productions from 1966-67 and by Paramount Television from 1968-69, airing on NBC from September 8, 1966 to June 3, 1969 for a total of three seasons consisting of 79 episodes. It was never a ratings success during its initial run, and only an extensive letter-writing campaign by fans convinced the network to order a third season. However, Star Trek became a cult classic in broadcast syndication. Plans for a continuation of the series in the late 1970s eventually became Star Trek: The Motion Picture, released in 1979. Since then there have been a million spinoffs, and the original series is sometimes known by the retronym Star Trek: The Original Series (Star Trek: TOS or TOS) to distinguish it within the media franchise that it began.

Paragraph about its influence, which should include Roddenberry's vision of the future (Wagon Train pacifism) the interracial kiss and its iconic status (where no man has gone before can go here, although perhaps it's iconic enough to leave in its entirety). This is also where the remastering should be mentioned.


You can see it's as much a to-do list as a rewrite at this point. I'll come back to it and see what others think. By the way, I share your thoughts on the title -- I was going to move the TOS stuff to the first sentence but thought others would object. Cheers, Manbiteswiki (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


article name redux

I'm aware this has been discussed before (scattered around the archive), but there are several problems with the current name that do not seem to have been adequately covered.

First of all, I could not find evidence of widespread support (or even what I would consider an arrival at consensus) for this article name ("Star Trek: The Original Series" as it currently reads) - just some dissent from people wishing to change it, and a couple counter-arguments, but no real serious discussion. If I missed a larger debate, maybe someone could point me to it.

While I would prefer the title "Star Trek (1966 TV series)", I am more concerned with how the article title tends to change the way the series is referred to in other articles. For instance, what brought me here was that I noticed the following in in the Galaxy Quest article: "... George Takei, who played Hikaru Sulu in Star Trek: The Original Series". My first thought was "No he didn't" - I can't describe exactly why, but it was jarring to see it written that way (I would have written "the original Star Trek series"). As a fan, I of course use the abbreviation "TOS" myself, and I'm aware that it appears on plenty of official material (and the DVDs), but in my mind, this is more for disambiguation.

It might also be telling that at startrek.com, TOS is the only series page that does not contain the full subtitle of the series in italics (compare [12] with [13])...

Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong agree. The title of the show is STAR TREK. Period. Full stop. I have no problem with mentioning its nickname in the lede, but the title should reflect what was seen onscreen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Rhosis (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 July 2013‎
  • Not really sure about this. True the name of the series was STAR TREK. However, it has become known as 'Star Trek: The Original Series' by most at this point. The Paramount website also refers to it as ST:TOS. The DVD and Blu-ray discs of the series are titled ST:TOS. It might be confusing to most not to differentiate it from other parts of the franchise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Although the series was called simply Star Trek at the time it was produced, it is now entirely referred to in an official capacity by the copyright holders as Star Trek: The Original Series. In fact, if anything, Star Trek now refers to the 2009 film. Miyagawa (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree: "The Original Series" is a retroactive name and is essentially fancruft (which Paramount has bowed to). "Star Trek (1966 series)" seems kind of clunky, but at least is better matches the Wiki naming conventions. Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Strong agree. Actually came into the talk page just to complain that the title should be the actual title of the show, not a common fan based disambiguation. Since just Star Trek alone would be ambiguous that leaves Star Trek (TV Series) or some such. I assume the 1966 is needed due to the cartoon TV series? Fine, just not what it currently is, that's not the name of the series.76.226.120.184 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Going further I think this article should be at Star Trek as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There can be hatnotes to get to the rest of the franchise. --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum Go Bruins! 04:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


Star Trek: The Original Series → Star Trek (TV series) – Television and per WP: COMMONNAME, WP: CRITERIA, and WP: TITLE, this article should be renamed to acknowledge their original name and not retroactively altered title. Per CRITERIA, it fails to be natural, precise, and concise, and WP: TITLE states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." which again would be the original title. Similar titles like Star Wars (film), which were later modified to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, acknowledge the original title over the modified one. 75.142.30.100 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times before. The reason article is titled as it is twofold. First, it is to alleviate confusion for non-fans and differentiate it from other parts of the Star Trek franchise. Second, per WP: COMMONNAME, the original series is now commonly know by that title regardless of its original name. This issue has long been settled. No need to litigate it again. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The series is actually now mostly referred to as "Star Trek: The Original Series" to avoid confusion with the other TV series, as SonOfThornhill stated. Plus, as they also pointed out, a reader with not a lot of knowledge of the franchise (apart from the fact that there were multiple TV series) would immediately be confused (ie. Which series are they referring to here?). In the end, the title is best as is because it helps everyone identify which one is being referred to. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. official materials even call it "The Original Series" now, so it is not solely a fan-term, as Paramount has adopted the term as well. WP:NATURALDIS would seem to say this is a preferable title to the parenthetical form. This is also more precise. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current article title uses a COMMONNAME to disambiguate naturally. This is entirely proper. Any argument to the contrary is based on (mistaken) conceptions about the "official" name, and official names matter little in article titling. I say this as avowed fanatic lover of the Original Series. Xoloz (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the above. AnimatedZebra (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL avoid parenthetical disambiguation, and WP:PRECISE (WP:CRITERIA#3), avoid confusion with other series. walk victor falk talk 15:29, 4 May 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some changes

I would just like to place in a small comment or two. Are you sure that Desilu did not produce the whole series....? I thought that the rights were rather purchased some time after the initial run, and (yes true) by Paramount. (...) And concerning the "best year". Arguments can go back and forth here, and I have my own perspective, but one cannot maintain that season three was easily 'the worst' and that the series fell off here. Simply untrue: many of the most intriguing episodes, visually as well as ideationally, were in the final season. I have corrected the main body from a common error on this point. It was veteran work, from an exceptional initial idea (of Roddenbury's) that kept the series at the same level, or better (despite the cuts) for their final season. It was a remarkable achievement. (John G. Lewis (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

John G. Lewis, You can make any changes you wish, as long as you have third party reliable sources to back them up. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have read your note to me, that you reverted changes in the main Star Trek article. I did, however, make some subsequent comments in the talk pages for the same article. (...) I believe that the initial script is simply in error, and for the reasons I have written. That the veteran work of Art Director Walter M. Jeffries, and the high script quality, with perhaps a good aesthetic sense from Frieberger himself, kept season three at the same, or slightly higher quality (ironically), than the first two years. This ... idea that the Fred Frieberger season - season three - was a dip... is a common perception, but one that is simply mistaken.

And you are talking to a ST fan for some 40 years. One might make a better argument that season 1 was the worst, because they had as yet to resolve some ideational and consistency issues regarding future technology and travel. But the truth is... that season three held its own, despite the cuts, and that all seasons are of roughly the same quality, though there are some conceptual and design differences. And no source is needed: it is patently obvious to the true Star Trek affectionado; you're mistaken. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

John G. Lewis Sorry, Wikipedia does not take personal opinion, conjecture and the like, and yes reliable sources are needed if you want what you put in to stay there. This is an encyclopedia not a fan-site. Please have this discussion on the article's talk page, not mine. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC
Very well. I will try to get a source or a reference.... I respect Wiki, and all the hard work people have done, and are doing. But what is a source other than some other individual's considered opinion? Anyway, I will look for it, and if I find it (concerning the high quality of the 3rd and last season) I will place both in for everyone, being, opinion and reference. Yours, JGL (John G. Lewis (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC))
John G. Lewis - Mlpearc is correct. While there is a certain amount of WP:Original research on every Wiki page (either a non-attributed comment/sentence/section or someone's clear opinion), most established editors are working on cutting this information down or trying to attach newspaper/magazine/etc references in order to keep this info. If you'd like to add any NEW content, please attach a reference that corroborates your text or it will likely be reverted.
Thanks for your interest in the page and if you need help on attaching a ref to a SPECIFIC sentence/text that you'd like to add, you can post a thread and ask for help - which you may or may not get - but its better than getting reverted. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Episodes in the UK

I read 'somewhere' that certain episodes of The Original Series were never shown in the UK - which ones were they? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nielsen ratings

Marc Cushman's "These are the Voyages" series prove that the ratings for the series, at least in the first two seasons, were not low... and that book provides evidence of the actual ratings which had the show as a strong second in the ratings most nights and as one of NBCs top rated shows.. suggest revising the line "Star Trek '​s Nielsen ratings while on NBC were low" as well as revising the 1st season summary about low ratings. Spanneraol (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cushman's book is self-published and in direct contradiction with every other source that has written on the topic. Until or unless it gets some corroboration from other sources, it certainly doesn't represent the consensus view, and there are a number of critiques of his book that point out all the sources he chose to ignore or appears to have misinterpreted. Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Cushman's book in fact provides Nielsen rankings for every single broadcast episode, sourced directly from Nielsen, as well as all available supporting documentation; the author received, in his words, unparalleled access to the actual documentation, including memos kept in the Paramount archives, rather than relying on hearsay. Whether or not this information contradicts other sources does not make it wrong; it in fact clearly notes that the record has been wrong for 50 years. Do we need to start uploading screen caps of the sourced Nielsen rankings from the book to prove this? 128.149.70.26 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Cushman's book is self-published, which means it does not meet the criteria for a reliable source; as you state, the "unparalleled access" is the author's own words. Beyond that, he is the sole voice arguing this position against plenty of equally factual evidence that the show was canceled because of poor ratings performance. There are plenty of articles critiquing Cushman's understanding of how ratings work as well as his use of evidence. Regardless, the consensus view is still that the series was canceled because of poor ratings, which is a well-established and documented understanding that is not in any way based on "hearsay." As I said, until or unless there is corroboration from other sources, including ones which do meet the expectations of reliable sources, this information cannot be included. Particularly not in the lede. Grandpallama (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually you are, first, mistaken that these are self-published books (Jacobs Brown Press has been around for a while), and second, not paying attention to the reality of the matter. Books BASED ON HEARSAY have been around for 50+ years. Books that actually demonstrate legitimate numbers, detailed internal memos, Nielsen ratings reports and so forth, should be considered a correction to improper knowledge. You are arguing for status quo incorrect information being part of the public Wikipedia record. I challenge you to read these books and see for yourself how meritorious they are in their collection of FACTS. Also I'm very interested in finding out exactly where your so-called "articles critiquing Cushman's understanding of how ratings work" are, since he actually has the Nielsen numbers to prove it. Either way, your statement of his error is just as bad as blind faith, so I believe that the entire portion of the lede stating that ratings were the sole problem should be stricken entirely rather than use your fallback statement. 128.149.70.26 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The Jacobs Brown Press has not been around for a while, as evidenced by its own website, and Cushman is involved in the publishing house itself. This has also been addressed all over the internet, and the books are widely recognized as self-published. As for the rest, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is built on verifiable, reliable sources, not on an editor's (or even a group of editors') belief about the "reality of the matter." In the absence of reliable sources that refute the statement in the lede, which is soundly expanded upon and sourced throughout the article, this is not an acceptable edit. There are a number of sources that have critiqued the facts in Cushman's book, from problems with proofreading, to a series of controversies about the images and their sources, to a number of factual errors tied to the use of statistics and claims made about ratings and how they work. You might find it interesting to start at the Star Trek Fact Check if you are unfamiliar with the controversies surrounding these books. Regardless of your thoughts on the critique, though, Cushman's book is not a RS and therefore shouldn't be used to make alterations to the article. If time, and other research produced by reliable sources, overturns this prevailing understanding, then it would certainly be time to revisit the claims about the effect of ratings on the show's cancellation. Grandpallama (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You are being pedantic. The article without the ratings information AT ALL is a good compromise until this is definitive, because if anything, the Cushman books have offered LEGITIMATE DOUBT about the ratings being the cause of cancellation. Removing it is the right way to go. 173.55.37.184 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You say "pedantic," I say "following policy." In the same way we don't include material from a source that fails to meet RS criteria, neither do we edit Wikipedia to remove material because it conflicts with that same source. The statement in the lede is fully supported and sourced throughout the article. Removal of it to suit a source that doesn't even merit inclusion is simply not acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Star Trek fact check is far from a reliable source itself.. The "controversies" seem to be related to different interpretations of the production schedules not disputes over the ratings data. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And so, I suggested removing the questionable material about the ratings in light of the LEGITIMATE DOUBT raised about it. I believe you are demonstrating personal bias and conduct unbefitting a Wikipedia contributor and I plan to lodge a complaint.128.149.70.26 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Spanneraol, I only mentioned the Star Trek Fact Check as an aside in response to inquiries about what kinds of controversies surround the books, not to suggest it is a RS. And the front page covers the production schedules, but the ratings are the heart of the controversy and covered throughout the site. Again, I don't expect anybody to dig through it to learn about it--I only offered it in reply to a question. In fact, because Cushman's book is self-published, the only real discussion that is occurring about it, both positive and negative, is in fan-based sites.
The real point here is that Cushman's book is not a RS, and so it is not appropriate for inclusion, nor do we edit in some sort of secret deference to it. When and if reliable sources produce material that supports his view, then we should by all means include them. I'm not sure what is so puzzling about this idea.
As for the anonymous IP editor, I will say that "lodging a complaint" against me isn't going to get you very far, since the core of your argument is that your preferred version of the page should stand, regardless of policy. Not to mention that the ridiculous "conduct unbefitting" comment is taking you into problematic territory. I suggest you retract that. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Star Trek: The Original Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

could anybody find color versions of the pictures and replace those with the ones present

the series was shot in color so, pictures in black and white makes very little sense.84.213.45.196 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Paradise Syndrome" is NOT a "parallel development"

More is said in the episode to the effect that the "Preservers" are responsible for the Native Americans being placed there than is said in support of the notion that they are the result of "parallel development"; in fact, the comments they make about about that are to the effect that parallel development is extremely unlikely: 

MCCOY: Look at those pine trees. 
KIRK: And that lake. 
MCCOY: I swear that's honeysuckle I smell. 
KIRK: I swear that's a little orange blossom thrown in. It's unbelievable. Growth exactly like that of Earth on a planet half a galaxy away. What are the odds on such duplication? 
SPOCK: Astronomical, Captain. The relative size, age and composition of this planet makes it highly improbable that it would evolve similarly to Earth in any way.

And all I'm going for is NOT to characterize it that way, to simply not mention it; but I'm told that it's "not 'directly' stated" that it isn't that way -- well, it CERTAINLY isn't directly stated that it IS that way -- yet it's being pushed to have that characterization kept in! And may I remind that it takes two to "edit war": I make a good-faith edit that eliminates a misrepresentation, according to the preponderance of evidence, and then it gets reverted! 67.186.19.151 (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be evidence that "The Paradise Syndrome" may not have been intended to portray parallel development, though I find the exchange between Spock and McCoy later in the episode to be more compelling than what you quoted above (from [14]):
SPOCK: Yes. The obelisk is a marker, just as I thought. It was left by a super-race known as the Preservers. They passed through the galaxy rescuing primitive cultures which were in danger of extinction and seeding them, so to speak, where they could live and grow.
MCCOY: I've always wondered why there were so many humanoids scattered through the galaxy.
SPOCK: So have I. Apparently the Preservers account for a number of them.
MCCOY: That's probably how the planet has survived all these centuries. The Preservers put an asteroid deflector on the planet.
I also don't see how including this episode in the list of "parallel development" cannot also be considered an opposite assumption. If it's disputed, I really don't see a problem with removing it. The list would be fine without that episode. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No original research guys.. Either find a reliable source that lists it as such or get rid of it. Spanneraol (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The entire list is unsourced, so one could argue that the entire paragraph is original research. There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. Either we find sources for every episode in the list, or we leave the "obvious" ones and remove the controversial ones - my quote from the episode above makes it pretty clear to me that the inclusion of episode in question here could easily be considered controversial. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I already did some of 'your quote' from the "more compelling" passage in defending my original edit. Am I to take it, then, that all the editors who've weighed in, including SonOfThornhill himself, who was opposing it, now support, at least nominally, my edit to remove "Paradise Syndrome" being cited as "parallel development"? 67.186.19.151 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't disagree with your point. I disagreed with how you went about it. You are an unregistered user so you may not know that there are certain procedures such as discussing such changes on an articles Talk page and getting a consensus of editors before making a change. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So saying "No it didn't. I think you're confusing this with a TNG episode" and "That's never directly stated. You're making an assumption" is not "disagreeing with my point"? That's a new one on me. I was also not aware that this is not a user-editable web encyclopedia. 67.186.19.151 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You seemed dedicated to being argumentative. A bit of advice, that won't get you far here. Changes are made by building consensus among editors, not by bullying or shouting down those who disagree with you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not at all "dedicated to being argumentative". If anyone here is, it is YOU. I made a good faith edit. You reverted it, taking a condescending and superior attitude (which you still are -- instead of actually addressing any point in my previous post, you simply label me in a dismissive manner), and stating erroneous information for reverting, effectively "shouting me down", and now apparently denying having taken the stance you took. And if you'll stop pretending, you'll admit that the vast majority of editing at Wikipedia is not done by first "building a consensus among editors", but by simply making the appropriate edit. It's not like I was attempting a significant overhaul of the article; I was just putting in a minor correction. If you had simply allowed my edit in the first place, as is by far the true normal practice here, and as the 'consensus' you argumentatively insisted on has backed, this entire section of Talk would not now even exist. So don't you complain about ME! 67.186.19.151 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You need to grow up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Will we ever establish how low you will sink? Apparently not. 67.186.19.151 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep posting. You are just proving my point for me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Your use of italics and scare quotes above comes across as slightly combative, which I think is a little unnecessary here, especially since I'm more or less supporting your original argument. I'm sorry if I offended you. Next time, if you want other editors to be aware of your edit comments in a talk page discussion, you could always link the diffs for those edits. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You did not offend me, Fru1tbat; please don't misunderstand. Oops, italics; sorry! ;) My last post was created in response to the post above yours, with an edit conflict. I appreciate your finding support in the same passage as I had. I do love inflection, though. My ship is equipped with very powerful inflectors. 67.186.19.151 (talk)

Requested move 09 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Original Series → Star Trek – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Article editor (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from RMTR speedy move

Survey

  • NOTE see similar move request made by same nominator at talk:Star Wars (film) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think people think of the franchise first, not the original TV series first. Further, the recent reboot film is also called "Star Trek" , and the cartoon was also just "Star Trek". TOS is used canonically by Paramount and Fandom, and in marketing, so there is no advantage in introducing more ambiguity. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as editor who moved this to the contested moves section, and per IP 70. sst✈(discuss) 09:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, when creating a franchise, you don't tend to realise you're creating a franchise, and thus the original tends to need to be retconned to a new name. When people said during the time of TNG/VOY/ENT "have you watched the latest episode of Star Trek", they weren't referring to the final episode of the original series, they were referring to that week's episode of whichever show was currently running, and thus to the franchise rather than the particular show. The franchise should remain the primary topic. We must then ask whether there is a better name for this article, and I would say there is not - it is officially known as TOS in many officially sanctioned media, and indeed in the wider noosphere. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Most now think of Star Trek as the whole franchise, not of the original series. A move would just create confusion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "The Original Series" is widely used by persons familiar with the series; the series is one aspect of the franchise, and the franchise predominates over all of its parts. bd2412 T 14:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commonly called "Original Series" in media to distinguish it from the overall franchise.--JOJ Hutton 12:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common usage now uses The Original Series suffix. Miyagawa (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the reasons already stated. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, but also because your perspective on the primary topic on this franchise is significantly biased by what franchise product you were introduced to. Teenagers today may see the recent Star Trek (film) as the most primary, whereas those who grew up on TOS, would likely see that as primary. The franchise as a landing point create something even better than a simple DAB page. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode order?

I can't find the information anywhere in this article, but the fact that the production order, original air date order and in-universe sequential order are all different should probably be here. Something like is in the lead of List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes would be enough. If I am missing something I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No Plot?

This article has no plot summary... 199.249.109.33 (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

TOS had almost no overarching plot. It had characters and a premise, and each episode had a plot. There was one two-part episode, and sometimes (rarely) there would be obscure references to continuity with prior episodes. A plot summary in this article would not serve any purpose, except to point this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

premiere date of the original star trek

Maybe add that the original star trek tv show was shown two days ahead of the NBC date on CTV in canada? I aksed the same question in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.197.250 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: The Original Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Star Trek: The Original Series

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star Trek: The Original Series's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Encyc":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: The Original Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Trek: The Original Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Star Trek" in Infobox

Though the font is correct, the color is not.

It should be in the "sky blue" range.

Can this be corrected? 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Season Three Quality

Gentlemen, gentleladies. I have made this comment before, so I am sorry to rehash, however, I would like to make some further points. To reiterate, I believe season three to have been the finest of the three seasons. An opinion, and the reasons for this are: the characters are well developed and established, there exists a greater standardization and understanding of 23rd century technology, the plots are slightly better and more intriguing, and, though this was a strong current throughout all three seasons, the episodes show a greater humanitarian concern. This is referred to as the "Fred Frieberger" season by Trek fans, and usually disparagingly. I have read large tracks of Mr. Shatner's well written book "Star Trek Memories", and his opinion of the third season was that quality did decline a bit, yes. This was his opinion, and you do have a footnote, but the two reasons that Mr. Shatner gives, if I recollect accurately, was the reduced funding per episode, and the point that the lead characters were being lampooned and abused in certain episodes, such as 3rd's "Plato's Stepchildren".

Reduced funding did happen, yet the wizardry of art director Walter Jeffries kept set quality excellent. Indeed, I believe the class of Jeffries' work increased through the three season run. Take for instance 3rd's "Spectre of the Gun". This was an episode originally intended to be shot outside, yet due to the budget cuts had to be filmed indoors. Jeffries then designed a beautiful, somewhat psychedelic and dreamlike set that worked exceptionally well, and was very appropriate for the script. (Therefore, oddly, this episode may have been better due to the budget cuts!)

There is a further point. The reason given in the article for the purported decrease in quality, 3rd season, is the "Monster of the Week" issue. Yet technically speaking, and I have done two crude counts, it was rather the 1st season which was so 'plagued'. The first year, 1966 - 1967, was the season featuring the salt monster (the 1st episode aired), and the famous Gorn, as well as numerous others. Even the redoing of the first pilot featured a (literal) monster. But having enemies appear in an episode so as to eliminate them was a fairly standard feature of 1960s television generally, and to critique Trek for this is to a degree inappropriate. Nonetheless, I can redo the count (and there is the question about what are you going to call a monster or villain of this type), however, I believe it was rather season 1 which more so witnessed this. So then, this critique of season three would be technically incorrect.

Finally, Mr. Shatner's opinion is notable but not determinative. His opinion on the overall artistic merits of season three may well be weighted down by his reasons, while he overlooks others. I can reread his book on this score and get back, as well as do a another count. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC))

To summarize, if you will, the article offers William Shatner's opinion on the third season as fact whereas it is really strictly opinion, and secondly, there is the "Monster of the Week" issue. (John G. Lewis (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC))

I'll do some work here this winter... Allright? ... I'll reread the pertinent parts of W. Shatner's book, perhaps some other material on the third season, and on all three years. Yet it is in my opinion the article should be amended to read something like, "While many believe 3rd season tailed off to an extent due to the budget cuts, nonetheless, the work by the seasoned actors and crew, notably including Walter Jeffries at art design, kept quality levels reasonable." Or some such. (John G. Lewis (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC))

Shouldn't April Tatro be included for Assignment: Earth?

What is the threshold for inclusion on this page? It was recently determined that April Tatro had a significant but nonspeaking role in the episode "Assignment: Earth". Shanen (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Parodies

There are many more Star Trek parodies than are listed, or should be listed. I heard one during the 1960s when the show was still on the air. It was a radio blurb for the first album by Quicksilver Messenger Service featuring members of the band imitating characters on the "Starschlep Innertube" including one "Captain Quirk," and it was a very fine piece of San Francisco hippie madness. I doubt that anyone, anywhere, has a recording of it, but it is possibly the very first parody. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Eric

Many are not notable. consensus would be needed for any additions (IMO). - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. See WP:Notability "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list" [emphasis mine]. There needs to be some restraint in lists like this, but notability is not the criterion; rather (IMO), interest & relevance. @Wastrel Way, I think the above would be a good addition to the article, especially if it can be confirmed to be the very first parody (or at least a strong presumption, this is a falsifiable claim of course). --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Bona fide

The series was described in the lead as having become "a bona fide hit" in syndication. That sounded very much WP:PEACOCK to me, so I removed "bona fide". After all, how can it be distinguished from any other kind of hit? I welcome any demonstration that the use of the phrase makes a serious point. Harfarhs (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Whether or not they advertised it this way, I'm sure the syndicating stations had the mindset of "The hit TV series is back...now 5 days a week!" It was at that point certainly debatable if Star Trek could be correctly called a hit. Its subsequent success in syndication turned a "debatable hit" into a "bona fide hit." Yes, I could do without the "bona fide" too, but it does make sense in that context. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Worldwide Syndication

I came here to settle whether Posadas could have seen Star Trek in Spanish in 1968, and was dissapointed to see the "Broadcast History" section has nothing about when the first dubs in each language were. Star Trek had a global reach and a global influence and it would be interesting to see its regional release dates historically. --[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong on syndication

Article reads: ”…as Kaiser's ratings were good, other stations, such as WPIX in New York City and WKBS in Philadelphia, also purchased the episodes…”

This is wrong in two ways: WPIX actually began airing “Star Trek” on Wednesday, Sept 10 1969, 5 days before the Kaiser stations did on Monday Sept 15. And also, WKBS in Philadelphia WAS a Kaiser station.

The idea that Kaiser stations in Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, and Philadelphia lead the way is a myth…many markets were in at the beginning…besides New York City, there was Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Miami, Albany, El Paso, Dayton, Ottawa, Providence RI, Las Vegas, as well as non-Kaiser stations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and I’m sure many more. In February of 1970, Paramount ran two ads in Broadcasting magazine touting the high ratings stations were getting with “Star Trek.” They mentioned 7 markets, not one a Kaiser market. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

last network broadcast

Article says: "Star Trek aired on NBC from September 8, 1966, to June 3, 1969."

Wrong. Last broadcast was September 2, 1969. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that backs this up? Ckruschke (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

For the September 2 broadcast, TV Guide notes "last show of the series." And if you check subsequent issues of TV Guide, or the TV listings of any newspaper (like the NY Times), you will find no further prime time broadcasts of Star Trek on NBC. The last show of a series isn't exactly a secret. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Madlyn Rhue Myth re TWOK

I have removed this entry as recent research shows that she was fully mobile in 1981 when the film was made. In this article Nicholas Meyer states he wrote the character out to provide motivation for Khan... https://www.facttrek.com/blog/rhue

Not that I disagree with you, but your source for this is not one that Wikipedia would accept as it is essentially a blog. IMO you need a better source or really the section in the article needs to stay. Ckruschke (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
But the source we're using now for this is clearly labeled as an author's blog from Tor. Has he done the research these two guys have done? I doubt it. Sir Rhosis (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, here we have the problem with an amateur encyclopedia like this. For a real encyclopedia, they get an expert on a subject to write the article and there's no need to fuss over what's a "reliable source." Face it, the people who write for wiki are assumed not to know anything. They should end every article with a cheery "Hope this helps!" 74.104.189.176 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Original Series or Star Trek: The Original Serie ?

Star Trek: The Original Series or Star Trek: The Original Serie ?

135.0.44.102 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Serie" is not a word. DonQuixote (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

wrong on syndication

Article says: “Paramount began advertising the reruns in trade press in March 1969, as Kaiser's ratings were good, other stations, such as WPIX in New York City and WKBS in Philadelphia, also purchased the episodes.”

This is wrong for two reasons. First, according to an ad in Broadcasting magazine Aug 4 1969, WPIX was among 16 stations that had already purchased the package, and in fact WPIX was the first station in the country to broadcast Star Trek in syndication on Wednesday Sept 10, ahead of its general debut, including 4 Kaiser stations, on Monday Sept 15.

And second, WKBS in Philadelphia was a Kaiser station. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:3CD0:A422:6098:B251 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Vulcan" or "Vulcanian"

I just noticed that in some episodes in the first season, maybe many or all of them, Spock refers to himself as a "Vulcanian." Perhaps this was permanently changed to "Vulcan" at some point. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably the scriptwriters got a memo from Vulcan indicating that this is their preferred demonym. Martindo (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Original Series" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Original Series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 10 § The Original Series until a consensus is reached. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series/Archive_1&oldid=1244839099"