Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Open RM for Hikaru Sulu

* (Discuss) – Hikaru Sulu → Sulu (Star Trek) Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The Original Series/archive1

Star Trek: The Original Series has been peerly reviewed by Sjones23. I just happened to introduce the peer review, that's all. For skilled writers, I am just a novice and inexperienced to write professionally into FA-status. Can anyone solve the problems? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken image?

Is File:USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701),_ENT1231.jpg broken for anyone else? --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, broken for me as well. Strange, I'm sure that file displayed properly in the past. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed by Developers. (I poked them on IRC) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect feedback

I redirected Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek to Spacecraft in Star Trek. The former is the result of an oddball merge -- Starfleet starship registry and, I believe, Other Starfleet ship classes (a collection of miscellaneous starship classes). The articles independently were collections of overwhelmingly in-universe trivia (I say having added 11K to the registry article in 2006); merged, it retained the trivia and squished it into an awkward-looking jenga tower of disorganization. Anyhow, there were one or two real-world elements, which I merged into the revised Spacecraft in Star Trek article before planting the redirect.

I'm mentioning this particular merge here because 66.108.118.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) undid the redirect. It is an incredibly obscure article and the IP's sole edit -- I suspect it may have been a registered but logged-out user. Prompts to engage in WP:BRD on user page and article talk page were unaddressed, so I'm shooting up a flare here: I'm restoring the redirect and have explained as much on this and the article talk page. Maybe nothing more comes of this, but if it does, input from other members of the wikiproject would be appreciated. You can see the pre-redirect content here. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 7

I've moved 2011's talk-page discussions to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_7. Give a shout if you'd like me to undo it. I didn't see any outstanding issues, i.e. anything lacking resolution. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Starship article ruminations

Hey, folks. So, I've been in one of my more manic Wiki-editing moods of late. But, I'm also banging my head against the keyboard trying to figure out all this Star Trek spaceship-related stuff. I'd appreciate some feedback and your thoughts on a few things. They're all a bit interrelated:

  • Spacecraft in Star Trek and Starship Enterprise -- I'm pretty happy with where the Spacecraft article is now/going, and I'm working on a revision of the Enterprise article in userspace. However, the more I work on the latter, the more I feel it's in many ways (too) duplicative of the former, just with an "Enterprise-only" filter applied. (I am planning to add details about the interior design.)
    • I'm worried that my userspace work is shaping up to offer too much of an out-of-universe depiction in reaction to the overwhelmingly in-universe presentation in the current article. What level of in-universe detail is appropriate. Is any kind of in-universe stuff appropriate for this catch-all article, or better in the individual spin-offs?
    • And/or, I'm starting to question whether a "Starship Enterprise" article is really necessary -- would we avoid duplication and still offer sufficient coverage if we had just Spacecraft in Star Trek and separate spin-offs for the NCC-1701, -D, -E and NX-01 (plus other hero ships from the other franchises)? In some ways, the Starship Enterprise article is the "redirect-alternative-to-AfD" target for things like the Enterprise-B and Mirror Universe Enterprises -- but, even their coverage at Starship Enterprise is anemic, and the subjects sufficiently addressed at e.g. the Generations article and/or the Spacecraft article.
  • Yes, I omitted the NCC-1701-A as one of the spin-off Enterprise articles in the list above. The more I look at that one, the more I don't think it warrants a separate article from the NCC-1701. From a real-world perspective, there's not a real significant difference between the two; they're the same filming model, serving the same narrative role for the same intrepid crew.
    • So, now I'm thinking about dab titles. They're currently friendly toward folks who know the franchise, and also conveniently short. (I don't see anything in the dab MOS that suggests brevity is a guiding principal, although it might be assumed by its referencing the generic naming conventions, which I didn't look into.) Anyhow, what are folks' thoughts on the following:
      • Merge USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) into USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and rename it USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series and films) <-I don't really like this -- esp. the "and films")
        • Alternatively, it we really look at this from an out-of-universe perspective, perhaps we instead have separate USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series films) articles -- ah, but then does that suggest the 2009 film material get spun out into its own thing?!
      • USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) -> USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
      • USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) -> USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation films)
      • Enterprise (NX-01) -> Enterprise (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Well, that's all for now. Input requested. Yes, I know my tiered array of bullets and array of subjects aren't conducive to lots of replies; please do refactor my comments above if it would aid in communication. --EEMIV (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments to this
  • The fair use rationale of File:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg as it is violates WP:NFCC Policy 10c, which requires a separate and specific rationale for each use. I will look into this and fix it as soon as I have a bit more time.
  • "And/or, I'm starting to question whether a "Starship Enterprise" article is really necessary -- would we avoid duplication and still offer sufficient coverage if we had just Spacecraft in Star Trek and separate spin-offs for the NCC-1701, -D, -E and NX-01 (plus other hero ships from the other franchises)?"
I think as it is User:EEMIV/Starship Enterprise is not overly long and it would fit into Spacecraft in Star Trek quite well in my opinion.
  • "perhaps we instead have separate USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series films) articles"
In my opinion this should only be done, if each of them is really capable of having an article with established notability on their own. I think the better approach is to create one article, perhaps with individual sections for some of the more notable ships (1701, -D, ...), and spun off individual articles only if one of the sections becomes too long and overwhelm the Spacecraft in Star Trek article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the solution for this sort of situation with overlapping articles is WP:Summary style. Have a general article on the ships, where the sections can be summaries of the articles on specific ones, with again, subarticles on the treatment in different works, There is no harm in some duplication: the principle is NOT PAPER; this permits us to write simultaneously at the level of the outsider and the expert. The importance of the ships within the fictional work is imho considerably greater than the RW importance of the filming, We include the RW aspects of fictional aspects, but we need to focus where the interest is. Without the extreme importance of the fiction, the models and so on wouldn't be worth discussing. (There may be some cases where the technical aspects of producing a work are more important than the work itself, but I doubt there are very many.) DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode navboxes

Is there any reason of which I'm not aware why Cbbkr (talk · contribs) would be "standardizing" all Trek episode navboxes by removing the quotation marks from around episode titles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Star_Trek_VOY_S4&curid=28683852&diff=474856199&oldid=465162636)?

Hmm. I think it looks better aesthetically, but I can understand being rankled by the break from MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be better to keep the quotes. Episodes of TV always have quotes like other serialized or episodic works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-)notable individual ships

An editor has reverted redirects for two ships: USS Stargazer (Star Trek) and USS Excelsior. The former redirect was in place for a few years, the latter was relatively new. Neither article asserts real-world notability or presents evidence of significant third-party coverage. I doubt either article has significant numbers of watchlisters, so I'm asking for your input here (Stargazer) and here (Excelsior) re. these ships' notability. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing only one comment at the Stargazer talk page supporting redirect, I've restored redirects for both articles. --EEMIV (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delta Flyer

There have been recent redirects of Delta Flyer to Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek#Continuation_on_television, due to notability concerns. It seems to me that this redirect is to an article that doesn't adequately address the Delta Flyer topic and loses a lot of the good-faith content included in the article. I don't quite understand what the notability issue is supposed to be, but perhaps notability can be beefed up, or the article merged into another relevant article in this project, such as Star Trek: Voyager. In the meantime, I'll do some minor cleanup to the article itself. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation DVD

This article appears to have slipped through the cracks. It doesn't even have the Star Trek WikiProject template on its talk page. That said, I can't think of any reason why this should be on the 'pedia. All its encyclopedic information should be covered at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. Are there any other shows that have articles dedicated to their DVD releases? If so, I can't find any, and I would have trouble justifying them as encyclopedic. Thoughts? --Fang Aili talk 20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of further opinions, I went ahead and prod'd it. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen other shows merge DVD releases into season pages, of which there are not many for the various Star Trek series. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Another request for input

The same editor mentioned above restoring a few non-notable ships' articles has since restored Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek. Interestingly enough, I wrote most of that article's content -- go figure. Anyhow, it's an amalgamation of in-universe trivia and a lot of non-notable randomness (partially the result of a poorly though-out merge a few years ago). Anyhow, I've posted a reminder about WP:GNG and WP:RS at the editor's talk page, but your input at Talk:Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek#Redirect re. this specific amalgamation would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We could use some more opinions here. --Fang Aili talk 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nichelle Nichols' White House photo

Is there any way to ascertain if this photo is a White House product, and therefore in the public domain? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

citations in the lede

In all nine of this project's featured articles (Category:FA-Class Star Trek articles), only one of them—Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country— has a single citation in the lede, and it's still duplicating the citation in the article and infobox. It seems that its our SOP to eschew citations in the lede.

The Manual of Style on the lede section says that since the information in the lede should only be summarizing the already-cited information in the article, "[t]he necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

174.109.211.25 (talk · contribs) deleted over two-thirds of the lede to "Tuvix" two weeks ago, saying "Deleted as original research, please provide references before reverting". I reverted the anon, saying that "the lead is a summarization of the material already cited in the body of the article (not OR), duplicate citing is unnecessary". Today, the same anon reverted me saying "Still OR; again, please provide citations and/or references before reverting and/or undoing - please do not indulge in revert wars, thank you".

Now, despite the anon's inaccurate claim that the information is original research (the info in the lede is attributed to "reliable, published source[s]", and is not "new analysis or synthesis"), WP:LEADCITE does allow for citations in the lede "if necessary" without regard to duplication of citations. However, it's up to a consensus decision as to whether such duplicative citations are necessary. I'm almost comfortable pointing to the precedent of this WikiProject's featured articles as my consensus, but I would appreciate explicit input from the editors here as to whether we, in consensus, feel duplicate citations are needed in the lede if the information is already cited within the body of the article. Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion and offered my opinion on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and input, EEMIV. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

use of superscripted ordinals

I've been targeting ordinal numbers not in conformity with WP:MOSNUM. These include superscripted ordinals, which I remove wherever they come up. I've noticed them in quite a few of the Star Trek articles, in particular TNG. I would ask the assembled editors to make note and not use superscript for this purpose going forwards. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


User:EEMIV

Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits

  • Redirects without discussion
  • Actions against consensus of discussion
  • Subversion of AfD process
  • Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process
EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.

Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters#K

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242
Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241
Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace

Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek
Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A "keep" close at AFD does not preclude BOLD merges and redirects as personal editorial decisions. If you disagree with them then per WP:BRD you are welcome to revert them but the discussion on the issue should stay here be discussed at the relevant wikiproject talk page or on the individual article talk pages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
BOLD ignores consensus? These articles, and most contributions to Wikipedia, are made by noobs. There must be transparency. Redirects can be made without discussion, but changing them back requires discussion? There must be procedure. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Format of episode articles

I was reading the article on "Frame of Mind (Star Trek: The Next Generation)" and found that the first paragraph's placing of the episode in context contains a sentence fragment: "The 21st episode of the sixth season." I was about to change this to "It is the 21st episode of the sixth season." It occurred to me, however, that this format might well be repeated, and so it was in the articles for the next two episodes, "Suspicions (Star Trek: The Next Generation)" and "Rightful Heir". I didn't look further.

I assume that the Project would like episode formats to be standard. I suggest, however, that they all adhere to a grammatically correct standard. The current wording will grate on the nerves of anyone who cares about good written English. JamesMLane t c 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek story chronology

I hope I haven't jumped the gun too much here, but I took a look at this template, saw that its contents were nothing but red-links, saw the absolute lack of things linking to it and put in a nomination for speedy deletion giving the reason "not employed in any useful fashion", along with Template:Star Trek stories which is only a redirect pointing to it. If anyone has a mind to save these things, y'all can still put the breaks on the deletion. (I also wonder if I hadn't said anything and they disapeared, would anyone have noticed or cared. I did give apropriste notice to the template creators.) Cbbkr (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bat'leth assistance

Hello, I was pointed in this direction as it was suggested that the project could assist with an article I created from a redirect. The page is the Klingon favourite, the Bat'leth. It has been the subject of a peer review which suggested a few ways to improve it and suggested that the project might be able to help find some extra sources (It's not easy for this one!) and help with the article to maybe lead it to GA status. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuvix review

I've worked on the Tuvix article as such as I can. There're 26 reliable sources, almost 3000 words of prose, and as much information as I could wring from the Internet, magazines, and books upon which I could lay my hands. I'd next like to take the article to WP:FAC, but would love for you guys to take a look at it first. Thanks for your time and attention. — fourthords | =Λ= |02:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good article, there is certainly enough information available to make it interesting. I do not like the 2nd and 3rd opening paragraphs, they seem to be largely POV and are uncited, making them more suspect. I'm not sure if I like the picture of the birthday cake, either. It is a good quote, but the picture is not from Star Trek, so it threw me off. Akuvar (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The second and third opening paragraphs are just summations of the rest of the information presented elsewhere in the article; it should all reflect the opinions and statements of those later quoted. It's uncited because since it's only summarizing information that's cited later already, it prevents duplicating those and burdening the lede with tons of citations; I discussed that here actually, further up the page. As for the cake: I'm not married to the photo, but I wanted to keep the quote and I thought it looked better with in image than floating by itself. If others don't like it, I may reconsider abandoning the cake and just {{quote}}ing the text. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, posting here because this seems like a decent place. Overall, I think it's a very good article, and I'm really happy with the attention paid to fleshing out all parts of production and its themes. My initial thoughts on the article as it stands:
  • Images and multimedia: I think there's a good fair use rationale for File:Tuvix.jpg as there's accompanying content about the makeup, uniform, and actor (although the Fair Use Rationale needs serious beefing up), however I don't think there's a strong enough rationale for the inclusion of the Janeway vid. There's much less there that cannot be adequately described within text.
  • Where's the source for " "Tuvix" was well received by fans and television critics, earning approval ratings between 75–80%"? It's not in the reception section, and if its based on user-generated reviews form a website it's really not appropriate anyhow.
  • A little more explanation in the first paragraph of the lead about the situation would be nice. Who are Tuvok and Neelix, and how are they merged? (Don't really need to get heavy into the transporter, but explaining the predicament would be important).
  • The first paragraph in the "Writing" section isn't a paragraph at all--it should be merged logically into the following complete paragraph.
  • Not sure what the thrust of the following line is supposed to be:
Kate Mulgrew (Kathryn Janeway) also bemoaned the technobabble in "Tuvix" when asked by Starlog for her "most memorable line of technobabble"; "When did he cease to be a transporter accident and start to be an individual?"[16]

Is it supposed to say that Mulgrew thought her most memorable technobabble line was the following, or does she mean the technobabble in the episode got in the way of the story (never ceased to be a transporter accident [because of the technobabble]?"

  • Last line is again not a complete paragraph, should go in filming.
  • The Voyager Companion didn't have any meaningful content to add? I know the TNG Companion is chockablock with great production details beyond the listing of credits, etc.
  • I think some of the critical opinions later on need to be qualified more, such as "These themes and plot points have made "Tuvix" the most debated episode in Star Trek fandom, and one of Star Trek: Voyager's "most thought-provoking, and [...] single most discussed, episode."--it's debatable, so it should be made clear these are his thoughts (from 2000, to boot, since there's been Trek since.)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to reply in kind.
  • I thought the FUR for File:Tuvix.jpg was thorough enough; have you had problems with similar? As for the video: since two completely separate reliable sources specifically called out that one scene to laud Ms. Mulgrew's acting, I thought that was enough to warrant the NFC. I really think this is the sort of indescribable, nuanced thing that NFC is allowed for. I recognize that it's not heavily discussed, but I think it's sufficient. Is this something on which you would hang up a GA or FAC for?
  • As for being well-received by fans, that's in the reception section: "Cliff Bole felt the episode was 'well-accepted', and both he and the producers liked it. Actor Tom Wright explained the episode's popularity saying it resounded with viewers because…" The 75–80% ratings is derived from the three separate reviews by "Cinefantastique's Dale Kutzera", "Nikki Harper for STAR TREK: The Official Monthly Magazine", and David McIntee's Delta Quadrant: The unofficial guide to Voyager.
  • How is "… and tells the story of two Voyager crewmen, Tuvok and Neelix, being merged by the into a unique third character named Tuvix due to a interaction between the transporter and an alien life form." It's hard for me to find the right balance between too much and too little exposition.
  • I don't know if you had a particular way in mind with "logically", but I just merged the two. What do you think?
  • How about: When Kate Mulgrew (Kathryn Janeway) was asked by Starlog for her "most memoriable line of technobabble", she specifically bemoaned "Tuvix" and her line, "When did he cease to be a transporter accident and start to be an individual?" I'll confess, it doesn't seem that technobabbly to me, but she complained about the episode's technobabble overall, and that line was her most memorable.
  • Last line of the Filming section, you mean? Nothing else in the article or section specifically talks about the sets; I don't know where to incorporate it, if it must be.
  • I actually linked to the Google Books scan of the Star Trek Voyager Companion, and you can see there for yourself that's it's mostly just plot trivia and minutiae.
  • I changed it to: In 2000, David McIntee pointed to these themes and plot points as having made "Tuvix" the most debated episode in Star Trek fandom yet, and one of Star Trek: Voyager's "most thought-provoking, and [...] single most discussed, episode."
Thanks so much for the input! I hope my responses have made sense. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Fictional speakers of Klingon

FYI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And so it begins....

The following discussion 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.

Nominator's rationale: No other languages, real or fictional, has a similar category - the other categories listed here refer to Speaker (politics), not to speakers of specific languages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep The nominator's first claim is false, as its parent category, "Fictional characters by status" contains the category "Fictional Esperantists" (which omits Herr Lodovico Settembrini of The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann). Klingon-speaking, like Esperanto-speaking, is an important element in the portrayal of the character, of course, which is why this category was preserved in a previous discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 6 June 2012 (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.

Bat'leth GA

As it is within the scope of this project, I thought it best to bring to attention the fact that Bat'leth has been nominated to be a good article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging Starfleet ranks and insignia into Starfleet uniforms

The consensus for the proposal to merge Starfleet ranks and insignia into Starfleet uniforms, which has been in existence for over a year, has been to merge, and I would do it myself, but I don't know the first thing about Star Trek. Could someone here more knowledgable in this subject take it upon themselves to merge them? Thank you. Trinitresque (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll be on vacation for two weeks, but if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll work on it soon after I get back. --EEMIV (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

All episodes of Star Trek: Voyager

There are too many non-free screenshots that are too flimsy to use; they may be replaceable by text, unless otherwise. Also, episode articles have very little real-world. One of images has been reviewed at WP:non-free content review. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the majority of them are probably just decorative for their articles, as is File:ST-VOY Time and Again.jpg which you're already discussing. Did you want us to comment at the NFCR or are you wanting a larger discussion to take place here (or somewhere else)? For my part, as I work on Star Trek episodes (or any article for that matter), I remove any NFC that doesn't have specific critical commentary that requires seeing to understand, and add any that does. — fourthords | =Λ= | 07:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The majority certainly are, but I don't think it makes sense to blanket-delete as many *could* have good FUR and some I'm certain do already. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, concurred. Personally, I take them on an article-by-article basis; I'm certainly not in favor of mass deletions all higgeldy-piggeldy. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't keep an eye on this Project very much, as well as related articles. In fact, I have other things to do. Well, rather than remove ALL images, I would hope that any of you can work on all articles of Voyager episodes before removing all images. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nice of you to be concerned, but frankly we don't have that many active members, let alone a bunch who want to go through the arduous task of sourcing and adding FUR to images. Expecting us to get it done on your timetable just isn't going to happen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think its a case of as the episode articles are expanded, it'll be better to try and match the images to the descriptive text. I've changed a couple of the images so far to aid the understanding of the text (and ironically I didn't on Skin of Evil and now that's up for deletion). If the episode contains just plot, then the image tends to be a bit of a random guess. There is the same problem throughout episode articles everywhere. Miyagawa (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Greetings, and salutations. The entire Star Trek Canon article should be placed as a stub. There are more than 10 links to startrek.com period. The homepage? Really? Though I am a 42 year old fan of Trek, I am also a wikipedian. How many other articles have original content with a link to a homepage... Let's fix this people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Those links aren't citing the StarTrek.com home page, but simply (and unnecessary) linking there as the source for the articles cited, which are also linked. Those articles cited are "Production Report: 'The Forge' Begins Three-Part Vulcan Saga", "The Animated Series Gets Real", "Canon Fodder: Star Trek: The Animated Series", and "EDITOR'S PICK: The Animated Series, at Last!"

As for reducing it to a stub, the article cites a total of twenty-six reliable sources in its making. If there is information that can't be substantiated by any of those sources, then it should be removed; I doubt though that it would reduce the article to a stub. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Delta Flyer 2

I tagged Delta Flyer for relying solely on primary sources. A quick search on Google Books returned no useful secondary sources for establishing notability. Does anybody perhaps have access to some offline sources which could be used here? Otherwise I feel the article should be redirected to Shuttlecraft (Star Trek). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Economics of the UFP

Hi everyone. I have been reverting an addition of what I am pretty sure is OR at the United Federation of Planets article. A couple of other editors have as well. I would like some of you to weigh in on the discussion on the talk page if you could. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead and create/initiate a talk-page section for discussion. If the IP-hopping editor attempts another restore, we can request semi-protection. --EEMIV (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh it's there on the talk page. Yeah it seems to be one IP editor from Seattle. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

MoS violations in TOS eps

Don't know how widespread it is, but noticed at least on Charlie X & The Man Trap the lead has "Overview:" (in bold) which isn't in tune with MOS:TV or the MOS in general. Massive cleanup may be needed --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think I cleared out a season of one TV show or spinoff or another. --EEMIV (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been noticing them in the next gen episodes as well. As I'm fixing up the articles, I'm incorporating the summaries into the leads. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking to Memory Alpha

I just came across List of Star Trek characters (A–F), and was astonished that (a) the article had 276 links to Memory Alpha articles and (b) the article has been tagged for over a year with {{external links}}. Including its companion pages (G-M, N-S, T-Z), there are 1231 links to Memory Alpha. Perhaps we should just merge the lot and put in a redirect to Memory Alpha? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about redirecting off-wiki, so this may be off-topic a bit, but I do feel that any character without third-party sourcing establishing their significance shouldn't have an entry in any case. That said, paring the articles down will probably take a fair amount of work/time at this point, and other editors might object. Still, I'd be happy to do it if that's a direction we want to move in. Doniago (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment about redirecting the lot to MA was facetious, but it raises the point; are we an encyclopedia or are we just a link farm to another encyclopedia? It's patently absurd to have 1200+ links to another encyclopedia in just four articles, which are really subdivisions of just one article. A good start would be to strip all the links to MA, and include a single link at the bottom of each article linking to a list of characters on MA (if there is one). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
As probably evidenced from my comment above, I'd be quite amenable to that. Not having looked at the individual articles, any change of doing a bulk find-and-delete? Doniago (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would strongly object to either removing items from these lists, or removing the Memory Alpha links from each item. There are many incoming links to these lists, mostly from redirects where character bios have been merged into the lists, or directly from articles. If the text about a character is over-long or includes excessive plot details, that's fine to be trimmed, but that's not what I'm hearing. – Fayenatic London 18:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't help but feel like what you're saying is "leave things along becuase it would be too much work to bring them up to WP standards". Doniago (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the links to Memory Alpha have utility and satisfy WP:ELYES, although I agree the density is problematic. The first thing that probably can be unequivocably stripped is the Memory Alpha links to the actors, as that's not the primary scope of the list at all. Secondly, I think the issues becomes one not of how many external links there are, but rather how many characters are presented. I'd suggest stripping any irrelevant characters such as Honey Bear and then focusing on pruning any non-recurring characters. For the Characters of Halo series we've limited the list to characters that have appeared in at least two works; while that would be far broader in application for the Star Trek universe, it provides a fairly good benchmark to tackle characters that don't need a link.

    Ultimately, the utility of the list is drastically reduced if it's trying to accommodate everything. Renaming the list and focusing on tightening its coverage (while improving what's left!) seems to me like the Solomonic solution.

    (TL;DR version: cut the actor ELs, focus on pruning the characters themselves before deciding on the rest of the Memory Alpha links.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

    I came across the list with the Ns when I made a similar argument that's now archived. In short: redirect one-off character names to the episode/film in which they appeared; if a character is recurring but not notable enough to warrant their own article, they may or may not be included on a much-truncated List of recurring Star Trek characters. Please read my archived, far more thorough, argument before assuming this is my whole take on the matter. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I went back and read your thoughts, and it's a shame no one talked about it, they sound good to me :)

My only reservations are how to reconcile the other character lists--right now, there are several lists for each series such as ‪List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters‬. I'm not sure if keeping them segregated is the best option if they were to be merged, as there are several characters that overlap series--so we either make the "Recurring Characters" article purely alphabetical like the current version, or divide it by franchise and place the character in their first appearance--admittedly not a good option in regards to making it easy to editors to link to them, given possible confusion. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Encyclopedically, I would argue for a single list that contains those recurring characters that can be sources with secondary, reliable sources. I would probably sort it alphabetically because of the cross-series recurrences you mentioned. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, we should probably make a separate merge discussion then, and link all the character lists back to a centralized topic here then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New sister project proposal

Hi, you may want to see this proposal for new project based on fiction. --213.155.255.148 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Races

IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) has restored a few redirected articles -- Changeling (Star Trek), Vorta, and Kazon are the ones I see -- citing their "major race" status in the edit summary. As I posted to one article's talk page and the editor's talk page, "major"ness within the fictional universe is nice, but the articles don't assert real-world notability, and all three articles lack sources. One edit summary also points out the failure to merge/add summary content to List of Star Trek races, which I'm going to try to address now. Anyway, I'm bringing it up here for the sake of eyeballs and to avoid conversations spread across low-traffic-articles' talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Title of new Star Trek movie

There is currently a discussion underway at the Talk:Star Trek into Darkness on the issue of whether the film title should capitalize the work "Into" or not. Participants in this project are encouraged to add their two cents worth there. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Medical tricorder

The medical tricorder page seems distinctly lacking in anything Star Trek. Since this is an entirely fictional piece of equipment, and a word coined in Star Trek, the real world handheld medical scanners seems to be in the wrong article... -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I thought I should just drop a note to say hi as I've been working up a bunch of Star Trek episode articles recently. Admittedly one of my motivations is the WikiCup, but the main motivation is the sudden boom in X-Files and Millenium related content last year made me look at ST articles and I realised that there wasn't a huge number at DYK/FA etc, with those mostly concentrated around the films.

I've got a few ideas planned, the main one at the moment is creating enough related DYKs to get the ST portal up to five hooks per set. I ran a comparison of the DYK articles against those listed for the ST project and added all the related ones that were missing which took us up to ten sets one of each, and now I'm working on adding additional ones to expand that out to five each. It'll take a while - it's quite challenging to expand some of the episode articles enough because the already include pretty detailed plots, but the non-Next Gen articles tend to have smaller plots. Just to test out the theory, I worked up Borderland from the final series of Enterprise yesterday and managed to make it big enough for DYK (in fact, I ended up finding enough out that I put it in for a GA too).

I would also like to say thank you to the editors who come in and tidy up the articles once I'm done with them. I've always had a problem with niggling issues in articles, and while I like to think that I'm a great deal better than I used to be, I'm never going to be perfect. Run on sentences with too many commas to start with!

Although I do have one issue which has come up on a few occasions, which is Nielsen ratings for the episodes. We have them included in the episode lists, but they're not cited, and again they're on MemoryAlpha (I think) but again, uncited. Does anyone have access to any sources which would count as reliable for Wiki purposes? I've done some googling, and admittedly I found posts on boards for someone looking for the exact same thing.

Anyway, that was a rather long way to say hi. Hi! Miyagawa (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Assimilation2 article

I would like some input on my comments on and changes to the article for the crossover comic Assimilation2, or some significant non-plot additions to it. In short, it’s empty except for a plot section that seems far too long. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. I'd suggest the next step is to find commentary from reviewers, and insight into the concept and generation behind the series. It's been a while since I picked up a comic book, but I remember there were often interviews with the writers and inkers on the back pages -- stuff like that would be good to include for the real-world perspective necessary for this article. --EEMIV (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the digital versions that I've read have no such content. I'll have to leave that up to those who've read the physical comics. —Frungi (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bat'leth

The Bat'leth peer review has not been touched since it was created on 8 January. Is it possible for someone in the project to give it the review it needs? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Episode screenshots and NFC

It's been brought to the attention at Non-free Content Review that many of the episodes for Voyager have infobox screenshots that otherwise fail WP:NFCC (to note: we do not have an open allowance for an episode to have a screenshot; instead, a screenshot is only appropriate if, most importantly, it meets NFCC#8 about contextual significance, this generally being that the scene the screenshot is from is either one critically commented on via secondary sources or the subject of production discussion within the article. Just because it is a critical scene in the plot of the episode doesn't mean it merits a screenshot, if no one else has ID'd that scene as critical.)

I know this extends into the TNG episodes, and sure that DS9, TOS, and Enterprise all could be expected to have similar problems.

It would be extremely helpful if this project could help in either 1) identifying screenshots that clearly meet NFCC#8 (among other NFCC) in terms of being critically discussed and making sure their rationales are in order (One example would be the image at Yesterday's Enterprise, where there is production information on the design of the Ent-C thus aided by the visual appearance of the ship) or 2) identifying and removing screenshots that otherwise fail to meet these requirements. (If you remove them a bot will handle the orphaning aspect). It is likely better to discuss this and get voluntary help instead of outright admin-enforced removal that could cause some backlash. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of the episodes don't really have a great deal in the way of production information on them and so the images are unlikely to meet the requirements for most articles. I'm happy to trawl through them all and remove the obvious ones, i.e. Time and Again (Star Trek: Voyager) has an image of Janeway and Paris and simply is never going to be required by the viewer to understand the article better. Some of them could be argued as having potential for them to be kept, but they all seem to have boilerplate rationales. Others are just odd choices for the episode - Phage (Star Trek: Voyager) would be much better served with an image of a Vidiian instead of Neelix being shot. Miyagawa (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah for now I'd leave any ones that look like they have a good chance of being strengthened, but I'll try and help out with the obvious ones too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Episodes of Star Trek series

Compare one of Star Trek (not just original series) seasons to other pages that I've done: Cheers (season 1), Cheers (season 2), Cheers (season 3), and Cheers (season 4). They did not have much individual episode pages (except some from season 1), and even information about episodes, including awards, are too short to form themselves as individual pages. How do many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1) generate as pages without much improvement done, like real-world context? Lately, I seem to think that editors care more about images of episodes than quality of articles.

Look at "Lonely Among Us" and other similarly-conditioned pages. Why must I stand there and let the flagrant violation of WP:IINFO slide? Either it must be improved or merged into a season page, as keeping it as is is pointless to me anymore. However, I don't have a nerve to wisely condense info for casual/general readers. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that because Star Trek is such a cultural phenomenon, most if not all episodes will have out there the sources to make full, quality articles. ("Tuvix" on 20101026 v. "Tuvix" today) Now, is that a reason for keeping them around? I don't think so, but I'm also not inclined to delete and merge what I believe will eventually have to be undone as articles are written and expanded. However, if you want to have a go at performing such a consolidation and reorganization to make things right, I have no objections. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Before I do that, can anybody can trim down irrelevant plot details of non-notable episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1), so I can merge them into that season page easily? I can appreciate your efforts. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if you didn't do that. I'm currently working up the season one articles to GA, and so losing those plot summaries would be a bit of a pain as I'd have to re-write them again over the next couple of months from scratch. I've already improved Encounter at Farpoint, Conspiracy (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Skin of Evil, Hide and Q, The Neutral Zone (Star Trek: The Next Generation) and The Naked Now. I currently have Code of Honor (Star Trek: The Next Generation), The Battle (Star Trek: The Next Generation), We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation) and Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation) at GAN, and Where No One Has Gone Before is currently under request for a peer review as I think it has Featured potential (although I'll take it through GAN first to iron out any kinks). That leaves fourteen currently untouched episode articles in season one, but frankly I'm intending to get around to making every TNG episode to at least a Good Article as there is sufficient sourcing available for it. I've also got intentions of creating the other season articles as currently only the first season has been created, and I want to edit the TNG films up to GA too. Basically I've got a lot of aspirations! :) But I equally don't want to swamp GAN like the X Files episodes did last year. At the moment I don't have much in the way of sources on DS9 or Voyager (although the back of one of the sourcebooks does give a production breakdown on the DS9 pilot), and the Enterprise episodes have sources available on the internet themselves (especially the later seasons, although you have to tease the production reports out of StarTrek.com by using archive.org). The sources for DS9 and Voyager do exist - just I don't own copies. But I'm not objecting to the overall merging as you're right, they do break the guidelines (although they have been breaching them since 2005 in some cases), but could you leave season one alone for the time being as I'm intending to get the rest of those 14 episodes expanded in the next month or so. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if episodes can't be merged, can anybody re-summarize every episode of the first season into every summary parameter in Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1)? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that - I want to expand the season article some more anyway as at the moment it doesn't mention the behind the scenes problems the show was having with the writing staff. I'll see how much detail the GA lists of other shows include and base the volume of information on that. One thing about the table, and this rather relates to the list of episodes too - do we really need the Featured characters column? I haven't spotted that in any other series lists, and it borders on original research IMO. Plus the table is missing the production codes/references at the moment, and removing the featured characters would free up some column space in the table to slot those in. Miyagawa (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Since I realize that researching off-universe informatin from sources is a lot of hard work, I recommend starting with easiest task. I think that summarizing episodes is easy, so why not do that first? --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats a fair point. I'll have a look at season lists from other shows that are already at GA and see what level of detail is the norm. Miyagawa (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories for films and parodies

I have made a proposal at CFD to rename & restructure these categories. Please comment there. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Renaming List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation?

I think this list should be broadened into a list of all characters, main and recurring, so summary of main characters can be included. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2006 I participated in the Christie's Star Trek auction. I acquired most of the lots containing the set blueprints and some original set drawings for the movies and TV series. They have been in storage. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and the different licenses for uploading images/scans. Before engaging in a mass scanning project (at least several hundred items) I want to find out if these would be acceptable on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Advice or direction would be much appreciated. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know. I'm curious as to whether, along with the prints, there was any paperwork about their copyright status. I would think that the copyright-holder -- the studio, or perhaps the artist -- wouldn't waive their copyright even when auctioned, in which case the blueprints would need to meet the project's criteria for including non-free content. My kneejerk thought, then, is that a mass scan-and-upload project isn't anything to jump into. Still, I've left a request here for folks with more fluency in copyrighted media to chime in here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless marked, we should assume that as originally drawn up the blueprints are copyrighted. Further, sale of such works never implicitly involves transfer of copyrights, so the copyright should be assumed to be held with the originating creator/publisher. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I am contacting the auction house to find out if they have any specific copyright notices that accompanied the sale.--Godot13 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delta Flyer 3

In this diff, GB fan redirected Delta Flyer to Spacecraft in Star Trek#Continuation on television (1995–2005). I'm still unsure how this particular article is any less notable than any of the other character or spacecraft articles within this Project. I did locate a non-StarTrek.com, non-Memory Alpha site for the Delta Flyer, but would that confer any more notability? --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could be modeled on Runabout (Star Trek) and could also include information about the Hallmark ornament. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

For the Delta Flyer article to stand on its own, I expect it would have coverage on its design and creation, as well as out-of-universe relevance. That it was produced into a Hallmark ornament would be a component of that, but critical commentary or discussion of the ship, its design, its relevance to the plot, etc. would be much stronger and more useful--otherwise the topic does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And another one bites the dust

Just to let everyone in the project know, Dreadstar, one of our most trusted administrators and members of this project, has already bit the dust and left... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation is completely awash in fancruft, and almost totally lacking in sources. I see no real out-of-universe notability, but somehow everyone else thinks it's salvageable. Anyone wanna take a stab at fixing it up, or are you all just going to let it rot forever and hope it fixes itself? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of screen shots proposed for deletion

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 22. About 20 screen shots (various ST series, various episodes) have been nominated for deletion, using identical Twinkle-generated objections to their fair use justifications. Some more people should probably have a look at these and offer their own informed opinions as to whether the screen shots in question should be kept or not. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And a whole lot more, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 23. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I strongly suspect the vast majority of the screenshots really do fail WP:NFCC #8, but I also agree with the Village Pump post that it would've been preferable for the nominating editor to start a discussion here so we could, in all likelihood, reach consensus on that and identify important exceptions (e.g. File:TNG-yesterday's_enterprise.png, used properly at "Yesterday's Enterprise" -- and, thankfully, not XfDed). --EEMIV (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that more people go to the Village Pump discussion (see the link above) now and make a concerted effort to hash out this issue. The discussion currently going on there is going beyond the fair-use-image question into a more general question of whether the great majority of Star Trek episode-related articles are "plot-only" articles, lacking individual notability, and whether they should be deleted en masse per WP:PLOT. Perhaps this really is what should happen, but I would prefer to see any such decision made based on a wide consensus. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Category and project inclusion criteria

Im new to this project, have done no work here, so i want to ask before doing anything: is there a reason why Gene Roddenberry is not categorized under Category:Star Trek? I note he is tagged as part of this project. just before learning this about Gene, I had added his son to the project (obvious) and category (debatable?), and wont revert if he is removed from the category. I know we dont add actors to ST navboxes, and i understand why and support that, but wouldnt it make sense to have a few real world people categorized under star trek, like gene, his son, maybe film directors? If there is a consensus around this already, i didnt see it spelled out on the project page. thanks for any responses given, and not that it matters in terms of working here, but im a STOS fan from first air dates, and i was an acquaintance of Robert Wise (slightly) ca 1970s (i have a letter on STTMP letterhead).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added it. Common sense it should be there. Dream Focus 02:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality improvement drive for Portal:Star Trek

Per agreement from Miyagawa (talk · contribs) after a request, I'm beginning the reformatting process as part of a quality improvement drive for Portal:Star Trek. — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great! :) Plus I realised that after the Sword of Kahless was added to one of the hook sets, I count that there now needs to be only another ten DYK hooks added. So if you want to format it to have enough space for five hooks in a set, as I'm sure I can drum up another ten hooks yet through the DYK process fairly quickly (a month to six weeks should be plenty). Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's somewhat embarrassing to say for a wiki-veteran like myself, but I have no idea what actually goes into a portal's improvement. This might just be a thing that I let you guys worry about while I do some content legwork :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hope it's okay, but as part of the reformatting process I'm going to revamp the DYK section as well. It can still use all the same hooks, just this time it'll be 3 hooks per rotation, with one image per rotation. — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope the improvement drive is not just limited to DYKs. For example if people want a challenge, why not have a go at copyediting Bat'leth to help bring it to FA standards? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This particular quality improvement drive is specifically for Portal:Star Trek. But if you want to improve Bat'leth, then I wish you Qapla! — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful source for DS9 reviews

Just noticed this, courtesy of NeoGAF. Also, there's the AV Club's reviews, but I figured less people would know about Tor's reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, very nice. Do we have a place to list or consolidate Trek refererences for each other to use? — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. That's something that could be worked on at a /Sources page, though. I'll try and work on that sometime soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thats great - the DeCandido reviews were really handy on the TNG articles as they occasionally included production information, so its really good to see him doing DS9 too. Miyagawa (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical Lists of Characters

The history of these list are bad enough a quick dirty merger target to prevent deletions. To make maters worse as the state these lists are in now is perhaps the most clear examples of fancruft and overcoverage I have ever seen on the project. I'm not even sure what's being attempted with them [1] Characters who don't even have names are being listed Tactical Officer with a summary of his tiny part in the show? Tactical Crewman, with a summary which just basically states he is a crewman? The lists are difficult to read and I'm not sure how 90% of what's here could ever be parsed or useful to anyone. It's all just tiny little fragments of plot details not connected to anything, and most of these wouldn't even make the cut in plot summaries for individual episodes. What is the inclusion criteria for these? 74.4.198.142 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot deletion

Just to let everyone know that another batch of ST screenshots have been nominated for deletion. You can see all the discussions at Files_for_deletion/2013_July_31. A lot of these probably do fail NFCC#8, but be sure to check them! Eladkse (talk)

File:Plato's Stepchildren kiss.jpg listed for deletion

A file that two Star Trek articles use, File:Plato's Stepchildren kiss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. postdlf (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot more ST episode images also listed in the same day's log: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 31. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Geek Media Expo

Hello, fellow Star Trek fans! The above article is tagged because it doesn't have any reliable sources. I'd hate to see it deleted. Is there anyone here who can add some sources? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4

Divisions between quadrants are obviously wrong: Sol System should be at least close to the division between Alpha and Beta Quadrant, as in File:Galactic Quadrant Star Trek.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.147.44 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out and for suggesting a replacement - I've swapped it out. Miyagawa (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Star Trek for peer review

Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and myself have put Portal:Star Trek up for peer review.

We'd appreciate helpful feedback, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Following on from a comment at a recent DYK nomination, and the mention in the DS9 source discussion above, would it be a good idea to create a subpage for the project which lists suitable online sources for articles which meet the reliable source requirements (in our view).

I'd be happy to draw up something in userspace as a starter for ten. I think ideally it would be about the online resources rather than the print ones as print resources are more clear (essentially if it isn't self published, then it's more reliable). Miyagawa (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and get started. I'll try and add on to whatever you get started when I have a chance. You can probably just start it in a subpage of this project; if we don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Sources page, then that would be a good place to stick it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll create it there over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made a start on it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Sources. Miyagawa (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a great start. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Review Infoboxes

The Naked Now
Critical Reviews
AV ClubD- [1]
Den of Geekunfavorable [2]
Jammer's Reviews[3]
Kethinov4/10[4]
TOR.com2/10
Wil WheatonD+ [5]
Fan ratings
IMDB6.6/10 (138th)
TV.com7.5/10 (108th)

I've noticed some of the articles on individual episodes (especially TOS and the early TNG episodes) have started mentioning the after-the-fact critical reviews on them, which I think is a great thing. I know a lot of music albums have infoboxes like the one at the right, easily linking to the reviews, and helping to facilitate improving of the article.

Any interest in creating a standardized template to easily add a box like this onto the episode pages? I'm not very experienced at writing the code, so it doesn't have much color or pizzazz, but it's a start... Jhn31 (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never really liked these types of review boxes, and I wouldn't recommend them for Star Trek episodes. That's my 3¢, but if it's generally approved of, I don't care enough to fight against it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Fourthords. ith things like video games, where the products are commonly given a fairly standard grade along a numeric scale--4/5 or 9/10--but that doesn't really apply to most TV reviews. There's also the ex post facto nature of these reviews; while we're usually doing the best we have with the sources that are available, it feels a bit too much like undue weight for me to call out these newer reviews so prominently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What to do with Star Trek (film franchise)

I'd like to solicit some more opinions on what to do with Star Trek (film franchise). Way back in… 2008? (!) I figured I would use List of Star Trek films as the main page for a potential Star Trek film feature topic (after all, it's been used as a good example of the right scope for a featured topic for years!) I started gutting the article and cleaning it up, but along the way some other editors decided it should be an article, rather than a list, and moved it to its current home. I'm still not convinced that was the right idea, but whatever. While I still don't really plan on putting much time and energy into the film series page until the film articles were all GA or better (and at this point we're a little more than half way there), but I notice that the article has become… well, what it is now--a madcap mess of tables, sections, plot summaries, and out-of-control listing of plot and crew. The page seems to me to go into waay too much detail, especially since most of the productions are separate from each other and a lot of the info isn't strictly related like a closed trilogy or something like the Twilight film series. Rather, I think it should be structured more like James Bond in film, where we should be focusing on overviews, and leave the nitty gritty to the respective films. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree it should be more a list, with brief overviews of the films (and explaining the Abrams "reboot" part), and likely listing out the major box office and review stats to compare budgets and reception. Beyond that, the extra tables are too much weight. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree - although it seems a shame to lose the tables entirely. Could some of them be split off into other articles? They remind me greatly of the tables in List of Harry Potter cast members for example. Also the Star Trek (film franchise) would be the perfect place to talk about the old late 60s and early 70s film projects in greater detail. I've discussed them briefly in the background section of Star Trek: Planet of the Titans which I created over the weekend, but there is a fair deal more information out there. Miyagawa (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Vulcan" stories

What exactly qualifies an episode or film as a "Vulcan" story for inclusion in Template:Star Trek Vulcan stories? The episode "Tuvix" is included, but as a story it focuses on Tuvok (sort of), not Vulcans in general. Should any story with a Vulcan be included in the template? Do we have any criteria? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Does anyone know how to modify the list of recent changes on the project page? I just noticed something odd in that Star Trek: Planet of the Titans was coming up (which I created, but didn't add to any sort of list to be included there) but bizarrely some edits I just did to Geordi La Forge didn't come up - which makes me think that the La Forge article isn't on the list. If someone could let me know, then if I spot any other anomalies then I can rectify them - and if I create new ST related articles then I can add them. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. If it's got the TREK tag it should show up. Could be watchlist lag. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we just hit a milestone...

Back when I decided to stop lurking on the Trek articles last year and moved into article improvement (I still blame those who improved the X-Files and Millennium articles for giving me the idea!), the plan was to improve The Next Generation season by season. Well, as of today, with the promotion of "The Big Goodbye" to GA, all of the season one episodes are now at GA status. For those that copyedited the stuff I put out, I cannot thank you all enough as at times my prose is really quite awful!

The plan is now to go back through the episodes and roll the later improvements out to the earlier promoted articles in order to standardise them a little more. Mind you, I've already started season two ("Shades of Gray" anyone?) and ended up creating a season article for that in better shape than season one. Once the season one article is GA, we'll be able to move the first season to a Good Topic nomination and see if we can get the project its first good topic. Meanwhile, the Portal improvements went well and hopefully we'll start a Featured Topic nomination soon, and Tasha Yar is now up at FA and already has support (and I'm still hopeful that "In a Mirror, Darkly" will be promoted on a second run through. Miyagawa (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very impressive. Thanks so much for your hard work! — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to say - Tasha Yar was promoted to a FA today. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Computers in Star Trek

Working on something: User:EEMIV/Computers_in_Star_Trek; input and ideas appreciated, here, in draft itself, or on its talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's nicely written and sourced, I'm just not sure if it sustains a topic on its own. I feel like aside from the lead you've basically got most of what could be said on the topic without dipping into in-universe stuff there, and it's <600 words. I dunno if the answer is a broader article on Star Trek's views on culture, which would be an interesting contrast to the usual format of "Cultural responses to X". Then you would have a plethora of possible content--race, technology, xenophobia, you name it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea. It might be worth broadening it to include more aspects of the franchise's impact on the technology/science world -- not just computers, but communication, all those comparisons between quantum entanglement and the transporter, etc. Technology in Star Trek needs to be nuked from orbit anyhow; maybe I'll retool with that or something similar in mind. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a Technology in Star Trek article, so maybe that's the place for this stuff--keep it heavily focused on comparisons to real world stuff and its influences, since notable in-universe stuff already has its own article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's great, EEMIV! When I think of computers and Star Trek, I think of people discussing dictation (a discussion on voice control or Siri?). Upon a quick thought, that's all I come up with right now. I'mm come back if I think of more. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. --EEMIV (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi Maru

In the section where it's mentioned where this scenario appears in the media, I listed "The Apology Insufficiency" episode of The Big Bang Theory where it was a plot point. It was removed with the statement that it was only a "homage" but other mentions of it, like in Leverage are left to stand even though it was only an aside in that episode.

Do Star Trek fans really not like BBT? Because Star Trek is so prominently featured on that show in a very positive way. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed it for the same reason we remove homages to red shirts from that article: the subject is on the receiving end of *so many* homages that to enumerate all of them becomes ridiculous. With both KM and redshirts, we generally will include examples/references if that use garners third-party mention in e.g. reviews. If e.g. A/V Club or a DVD commentary track highlighted the Kabayashi Maru reference as an important part of the episode, then it'd be great to include. If there are other examples in that article that are cited just to the plot/episode itself, they should probably be ditched. --EEMIV (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
A tidbit more: two conversations on the article talk page that touch on this are Talk:Kobayashi_Maru#Other_Mentions and Talk:Kobayashi_Maru#Reference_on_The_Office. Looks like I wrote on the talk page a while ago that the Leverage bit should go, too ... and, then I just lost track of it. The article overall is pretty poor, so there's plenty of back and forth I just don't catch. --EEMIV (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

missing template variable

Can somebody fix template:StarTrek.com link? It's requiring a variable called episode_number that apparently the official Star Trek doesn't use anymore. Old pages with the variable still work, but there's no way to figure out what the number is without guessing and checking over and over. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it needs to be redone flat-out because of changes to how they've organized startrek.com. Thankfully, startrek.com redirects the old URL -- divided by series and marked up by an episode title -- to the new entry. The episode number is still embedded in each entry's source code, though: at Yesterday's Enterprise's article at startrek.com, it's at line 403. Until we can re-do the template (which would be a bit laborious, but not as laborious as then updating each transclusion), it might just be best to find the startrek.com episode article, find the entry at line ~403, and code the template transclusion from there. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sadly my wiki-skills do not extend to this... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

New ST:ENT image

I managed to find this which indicates that the credit is to NASA, thus making it copyright free - however I can't check the NASA archives right now for it due to the shutdown. So just leaving a note here to remind someone to check for it once the shutdown is over. Miyagawa (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TinEye to Wayback machine: [2]. I think you're good. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I'll see if I can add it to Commons tonight on a NASA licence. Its almost a shame that we already have two other images of Bakula in costume, but hey, we can always use more! Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That's uploaded on Commons now. Miyagawa (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New episode of old series

I just expanded the stub article on Pilgrim of Eternity, a new web episode following the theme of the old series. I think the article could be expanded further. (im mostly listing this here cause it blew my mind)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.

Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The promo ad of series premiere of The Next Generation

I found the promo ad of the series premiere. Does this replace the DVD cover of Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1)? --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the rationale for replacing it? Is it "better" in any way or more free for use? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the promo ad represent the season in any certain way? --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You can argue it represents the season, or the show. I'm generally ambivalent about series images in question, because unlike films they rarely have as much promotional materials; those promotional materials are rarely as uniform; and there's a shorter duration of marketing. TNG has seen many home media releases, and I doubt the Blu-Ray version is the most widespread. Considering that the stated purpose of such info box images is to aid identification, I'm not sure that the images often meet that threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In other words, Lost (season 1) promo ad doesn't represent the season well? George Ho (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Romulans, races, and a big ol' cluster...

There's been some edit warring over at Romulan as to whether that should be a standalone article or not. A lot of Romulan redirects got "fixed" to point to List of Star Trek races#Romulan in the fallout, many of which were no longer helpful when the content on that page amounted to "Romulans exist in Star Trek." I'm not particularly a Star Trek fan, but I've retargeted the Romulan-related redirects as best as I was able. A related problem is the large amount of remaining redirects to the race page (list). Many are on concepts not discussed on the main list page, and should be either retargeted to a specific race article or, in some cases, simply deleted. I know redirects better than I know Star Trek, so drop me a line if you need a hand with any of this. I'll do what I can. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eyeballs

Can someone take a gander at Kraith? I don't know where to start with assessing, revising, poking it. --EEMIV (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain it's notable. It seems like something that might be worth mentioning in an article about Star Trek fan fiction more generally, but a lot of the comments (such as the high proportion of writers in fan/slash fiction) is not germane solely to the subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Star Trek characters

I've started a discussion here regarding what criteria are used to determine which characters are included in these articles. Any opinions are greatly appreciated. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Space Seed

StarTrek.com has been running an excellent, in-depth series on the production of "Space Seed"; we're up to part 3[3]. With the amount of solid info on development in it thus far, plus the extensive commentary I've already dredged up on Khan Noonien Singh, this seems like a good choice for an episode to target to FA. If you guys know of reviews for it, that would be of great help as that always seems to be the biggest issue getting these to a high level of quality. Any and all help is appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool beans. I'll take a gander. --EEMIV (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm waiting on my copy of These Are The Voyages... (review here) which should have reviews, the fan reaction and the ratings as well as some production info. I've also got a copy of Inside Star Trek by Herb Solow and Robert Justman (but I haven't got around to actually reading it yet). I'll take a look at it and add anything helpful that I can see. Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, I forgot about These Are the Voyages. I know I pitched in enough for the S1 book... when are those supposed to ship? 70.167.245.10 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The hardbacks have shipped, and after the really brilliant reviews the publishing of the softback has been pushed back a couple of months, so the last I heard was that they were being shipped in October/November. I'm really looking forward to it - the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. Also, check out the Amazon.com page... - click on the 1 out of 5 review and you'll see an argument about the book using images off a website. But it seems that it didn't - as they're arguing that all the making of images for the original series were never copyrighted... which would make them free use for us too. We need to look into this as it could be a real horde of images available if true. Miyagawa (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, I've put in for a softcover too so it would be nice to get cracking with it when it ships. As for the images… that would be awesome, and it might be possible to contact the author and get a hold of the masters/scanned originals rather than going by what we can grab out of the books (do we get eBook versions too?) When it comes to it we should probably check with the publisher and start a discussion to vet the usage and see if it works for us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've left a copyright query over at Commons on the Village Pump about the re-touched images and what evidence we would need to use the originals. Hopefully once we hear back, we'll have a clear idea of what we need to pursue. Miyagawa (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
From what was said over at commons, essentially if we do the touch ups ourselves then we're on safe ground. Miyagawa (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
On a completely different note, my copy of the book arrived this morning - they decided to send out hardbacks to everyone who ordered softback versions because of the delays (due to the extended hardback print run because of the success of it). Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Great. I realized I only ordered the eBook version, which comes with some really annoying Adobe DRM but at least is formatted like the books so I've got usable pages to cite. Not sure if the layout is any different between editions. I started some minor additions, going to hope to jump on that this weekend and get the entire article fleshed out a bit more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Back to "Space Seed" - I've managed to expand several of the sections there now with some interesting stuff from the Cushman book. I've still got to go through Star Trek 365, but I suspect that the changes will be negligible from that as it's most pictures. Might have a few interesting snippits about certain props etc. What needs to be done now is for the evolution of Space Seed articles from Star Trek.com to be tapped properly and fill in any gaps along the way in writing, production etc and for the critical reception section to be expanded. I had hoped that Cushman's book might have given some more in-era reception information but it's mostly from the actors and the fan letters rather than what Variety magazine said about it. Which is a shame, but the book is already massive (and otherwise brilliant). Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Desilu Productions

Move request ongoing; comment to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Info on French dubs of Star Trek: Where does it go?

In this source I found info on the French dubs of Star Trek:

Caron, Caroline-Isabelle. "Television as Historical Source: Using Images in Cultural History" (Chapter 18). Keshen, Jeff and Sylvie Perrier (editors). In: Building New Bridges: Sources, Methods, and Interdisciplinarity. University of Ottawa Press, 2005. ISBN 0776605933, 9780776605937.
  • p. 242: The first two Star Trek films dubbed in French (Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: First Contact) had cultural differences changed, character personalities altered, and dialog "significantly" altered in both the French and Quebec dubs. In the French one the American cultural references were deliberately replaced with French ones: the American military ranks become French Marine ranks (the person in command is "Commandant" n the French dub). The Quebec versions use equivalents to US military ranks.

Where does the info go? Is there an article or section on Star Trek dubs? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd think there were the the potential for several different locations. Firstly, the two film articles - but I'm also wondering if we have a page on the ranks seen in Star Trek. We don't have anything on dubbing in other languages - in fact I've never seen an article about any film/tv series that specifically covers it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Preparing for next move request on Star Trek: The Original Series

Now that "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" is now Star Wars (film), perhaps the same should go to the first, original.... STAR TREK! Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an accurate, unambiguous name MUST be used, regardless of "reliable" sources. But CBS/Paramount uses "Star Trek" and the current name (commonly for home video). I haven't done the request at the talk page, so I am preparing a move instead. I don't need "support" or "oppose"; I would like comments please. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is fine. I'm a little more reserved about it because the phrase "the original series" (not titular, proper-nouny the way we use it) is a pretty common expression folks use to describe The Original Series. In other words, aloud the phrase is much more common than e.g. "A New Hope," even if it's meant as an adjectival phrase rather than part of a proper title. Asterisk aside, though, a ST:TOS -> Star Trek and Star Trek -> Star Trek (franchise) move is fine by me. --EEMIV (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What? Not a chance that the original series is more primary than the franchise. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you're just talking about movie titles, ditching the "Star Trek" pre-bit? I'd oppose that: the Star Trek films are announced in the trailers and billed in their posters with the "Star Trek" label. The franchise label is much more deliberately prominent in identifying the subject; it's appropriate to keep as part of the article title. --EEMIV (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
...Neither film is primary either, and I wasn't discussing them. Anyway, I am proposing "Star Trek (TV series)" as the title instead. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

37's re-write

I re-wrote "The 37's" and would really appreciate feedback on it. I've been staring at the words and code for so long I can't really see it anymore. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously awesome. Do you want me to tinker with the lead and add the ratings etc? Miyagawa (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure! I'm lousy at leads (it took me forever to write Tuvix's), and I find this one particularly stymieing. I couldn't find a reliables source for ratings, so if you can, by all means! Thanks! — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I'll have a go tonight. I also left some notes on the talk page about a few tweaks if you were thinking about a GA run (I don't think the article is far off it at all. I stumbled across a source for the ratings when doing the Next Gen ones (it was about the time that I stopped looking for one and promptly found it when looking for something else). It has the ratings up till one of the later Voyager series so the start of s2 should be fine (I know I've used it for the "Tsunkatse" article, so s2 must be in there). Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Question: why is "human"/"humans" capitalized throughout the plot description? -P shadoh (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
For consistency since we capitalize "Cardassian" or "Romulan". I think it would look strange for a sentence to be "The Cardassians, humans, and Romulans all shook hands," so I capitalize "Human(s)". — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, didn't think of it in those terms. Carry on. :-) -P shadoh (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Input

Would appreciate additional input at Talk:Where_no_man_has_gone_before#List. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Star Trek is now a Featured Portal.

Thank you to all from this WikiProject who helped contribute quality content.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Change of direction

Hi all, Just to let you know that I'm aiming to take a step back from working on episode articles for 2014 - we've managed to get quite a few promoted to GA (a very pleasing amount!) and I want to see if we can expand the range of the recognised articles for the project. I managed to get Tasha Yar up to FA last year, which was awesome and also Harry Kim (Star Trek) and Enterprise (NX-01) both to GA. So I want to see if I can get some more non-episode articles up to that sort of standard. Thankfully I now have the (rather wonderful) Questia access back again which means I can look at a whole bunch of pop culture thesis type books. Right now I'm working on Chakotay as it was in a pretty poor state, but if you have any ideas for collaborations throughout the year then just hit me up as I'm always look to team up on things. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Last appearance field in infoboxes?

Hi all! I'm in the process of review Chakotay for Miyagawa, and it was pointed out that the infobox template doesn't have a "Last appearance" option. What does everyone think of adding one? While characters appear infinitely in non-canon works, at a certain point, we can safely assume that they won't appear again on screen, like the cast of Voyager. Even if someone does reappear years later (a la Spock in the rebooted film series), we can just update the article to make the newest appearance the last one.)

Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is added...and I don't currently have strong feelings on that...I believe the documentation should clearly specify that the field refers to their last appearance in production order. I.e. the last appearance of William Riker would be in "These are the Voyages", not Nemesis. In other words, out-of-universe. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm iffy, leaning toward disinclined. If the "last appeared" were more strongly connected to "portrayed by" or the notion of the live-action appearance, that'd pass muster, e.g. clearly conveying, "Robert Beltran last portrayed the character in Endgame." As you say, though, there're lots of EU appearances, to say nothing of him also "last" "appearing" *to me* when a third-season episode flashed on the screen last week. Ya know? The "last" part also suggests finality, rather than e.g. "most recent." Meh. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts mirror EEMIV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Links for many species like Hirogen can be clicked from many articles, but they go to an article with no relevant information. Some previousdiscussion Art LaPella (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And I think that when one removes the content that a wikilink is directing readers to, one should correct the wikilinks at the same time. Art LaPella (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Let's continue at Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_races#Linked_but_missing_ST_races? – Fayenatic London 13:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It happened again, in a different article. Many of the dead-end links I just fixed were dead-ended again, and I'm less motivated to fix it all over again. The reader doesn't benefit from deleting allegedly unencyclopedic material, if you leave a hundred links pointing to an explanation that disappeared. Art LaPella (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Star Trek At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Only just spotted this, so I've filled out a table on behalf of the project. Miyagawa (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of String Theory (novels)

The article String Theory (novels) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not meet GNG, not reviewed by citeable source

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Enterprise: Two Days Two Nights S1E25

Hi All, I just looked at the page for Enterprise episode Two Days Two Nights and noticed that the link for the actor Stephen Wozniak incorrectly goes to the Apple Inc. co-founder's page.

The link is in the info box and I have no idea how to correct it. Also, I doubt I should be mucking about in such things. I hope this is an effective place to call attention to the error. Memory alpha has a blurb on the actor if we are allowed to use it: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Stephen_Wozniak

Cheers, Spingus (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Film franchise and Star Trek: Axanar

Why does the film franchise article list the fan film Star Trek: Axanar ? It would not seem to be part of the "reboot" universe, nor part of the film franchise. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, it shouldn't - and has already been removed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Starlog archives

Just thought people would want to know - the complete archives of Starlog have been added to archive.org - running from the late 70s all the way through to the mid 90s. Miyagawa (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect examples in the quality scale

Hello. I wanted to understand a bit more how the quality of the articles is assessed but looking at the quality scale table I've noticed that all the examples provided in the last column link to the current version of an article, instead of the version existing when the assessment was made. The result is that, for example, the GA-Class article Encounter at Farpoint is provided as an example for a stub. What can be done to clarify this information? LowLevel73 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could just be bold and replace the ephemeral links with more permanent ones. Theoretically for FA they articles are only going to improve so a regular wikilink will suffice, but for the others permlinks are probably a better option. The assessments are really the same as everywhere else on Wikipedia, the page just provides Star Trek-related samples that as you have pointed out prolly need some work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, since I'm a newbie and not yet ready to correctly assess the quality of any article, I could contribute to that page substituting each link with the corresponding version that existed when the link was added to the table (excluding the example of the FA). I would also specify the date of the linked version, as it has been done in the general quality scale. Would that be an acceptable solution? LowLevel73 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in jumping in here - I've edited the list and replaced the out of date listings. They should all make sense now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD heads-up

I nominated Red alert (Star Trek) for deletion; discussion is here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

State of the Federation 2015

As the year draws close, I thought it would be a nice idea to sum up where we are as a project and to celebrate our successes from2014. Firstly I have to say thank you to a couple of editors who have made an impact on quality improvement during the year. Fourthords (talk · contribs) has been working on several Voyager articles this year, including taking some of them to Good Article status such as "The 37's" (the episode that confuses me as I watched it as the end of season one!). Also Neelix (talk · contribs) who has created the article for the documentary Mind Meld, taken it through DYK and is now ready to be reviewed at GAN. Plus you know, with a name like that, how could I not include him? Plus credit must go to Cirt (talk · contribs) for his work on taking Portal:Star Trek to Featured Portal status - only the second FP for a television show on Wikipedia, only The Simpsons got there before us!

This brings us to 2015. What do we have in store? Well with fan-made productions going from strength to strength and a new film entering production, plus with the never ending rumours about what might be in store for the 50th anniversary, I think there should be at least a few exciting things to look forward to. The information on episodes of the fan-based series such as Star Trek Continues has been sufficient to warrant individual articles (see "Lolani" for example), and so we can hope that might continue. The fifieth anniversary of Doctor Who caused a huge volume of information to be released on the origins of the show, further fleshing out what we already knew - so perhaps we can hope for something similar for Trek?

As for on-Wiki, I think we're in a healthier state than we have been for a while. We have multiple active editors improving articles, a fairly low rate of vandalism and a growing spread of articles and lists at featured. With more resources coming online, such as the surprising release of the Starlog archives, perhaps we can dream of a day when the Starlog produced official Trek magazine backlogs could be published - fingers crossed that's being held off for the 50th anniversary as that would be a startling volume of sources we could all use. Anyway, keep that dream in mind, and live long and edit something! ;) Good luck to all in 2015. Miyagawa (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. As my four-year term of service with the Committee wraps up at the beginning of next year, I do hope to be a more active participant and work on the remaining Star Trek films once again Glad to see how others have been working while I've been occupied :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't got any specific plans at the present, but certainly I want to see if I can put together an article on Star Trek: The God Thing (it'll depend on whether I can draw together enough decent information from sources) and take Phase II to GA as well. The majority of the time I end up working on articles on a complete whim or when I stumble across a source. Miyagawa (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Portrayal dates

Hiya. The TOS character infoboxes have entries for portrayals, listing e.g. William Shatner as Kirk 1960-something until 1990-something, and Chris Pine from 2000-something to "present." Is "present" ... appropriate? Or, rather, best? Would it be better simply to put in the date for the most recent character appearance, i.e. Into Darkness' release date? If Chris Pine gets hit by a bus and all of a sudden Kevin Pollack plays Kirk in the next film, we would end up changing "present" back to 2013. We also have a guideline or policy about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, and "present"ness I think treads on that a bit. Anyhow, just my late-night wondering. Y'all's thoughts? --EEMIV (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we're best off following official publication/release dates. Shatner portrayed Kirk from 1966-1994 with his appearance in Generations; I guess you could say he was "still Kirk" until the role was recast but that seems like it's a thought experiment rather than something that should be verified. Since Pine hasn't been officially confirmed for the next film (or has he?) It should be dated to Into Darkness, i.e. 2013. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
After I hit Save page, I wondered about the question you pose about casting, and the implicit one underneath: should the date connect back to film release or to production/cast/contract time? At first blush, I think we stick with film release rather than production window: the character's portrayal is rooted within all the trappings of the film; I think it wouldn't be a final "performance" without e.g. CGI lens flare, ADR, second-unit filming and editing of whomever's on the view screen, etc. But, I dunno; I'm just making this up. Maybe the dates themselves are superfluous and we just ditch them; read the article text for specifics. I'm a bit disinclined toward that because I think date spans like that are the kind of quickly-accessible and digestible information an infobox is good for. Again: I dunno. Insert ellipsis here... --EEMIV (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

do we capitalize The The in The Doctor?

At the article Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager), whenever the character is referenced, it's as The Doctor. However other articles, such as Tuvix, use the lowercase, as in the Doctor. 24.11.173.84 (talk · contribs) just de-capitalized all instances of the character's name at Projections (Star Trek: Voyager), and I wondered what our SOP was regarding it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the StarTrek.com bio, it seems that it isn't normally capitalised. At least that's what it appears to be here: [4]. Miyagawa (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I also recall it lower-case in licensed fiction. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

Your thoughts appreciated at Talk:Away_team_(Star_Trek_term). --EEMIV (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Polishing up "Space Seed" for FA

Hey chaps, working on getting "Space Seed" up to FAC-ready status. I've gone through and done a copyedit on most of it, although it can still use more eyes. Going to check sources too to make sure things haven't gotten knocked out of place. References themselves seem fine, although the citation templates might need work, and images don't appear to be an issue—if you've got any other feedback, love to hear it here or on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool - it'll be a good test for the rationale for the black and white TOS images that a couple of us have been trawling off eBay as originals are posted. Let me know if you get a query on that during FA and I'll jump in to explain. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact, seeing as I have all the sources, I'm happy to co-nominate with you in case any of them get questioned. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you did a fair amount of work on the article too, so I wasn't going to try and steal it away from you :P I've asked an old wiki-friend to assist with another copyediting pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Plus - the more eyes the better I find. Sometimes you can be too close to a subject and not see the issues. Miyagawa (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld

I was wondering if anybody would be willing to take charge of the Mind Meld GAN since Neelix has retired? I completed the review and the concerns I mentioned were only relatively minor, so it wouldn't take too much work to bring that article up to GA. It would be a shame to close that GAR due to inactivity... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting - I've picked this up on behalf of Neelix. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have returned to editing Wikipedia and was very pleased to see the article achieve good status. I have nominated the article for featured status here. Any constructive comments there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Open Library

Colleagues,

I'm probably behind the times, but during the course of answering some questions about the FA nom of "Space Seed" I stumbled across Open Library - https://openlibrary.org/. The reason why I'm posting this here is because they have a number of Trek non-fiction resources that could be used to expand articles and I thought you might want to know that they're there. Here's the list of ones I've spotted so far which you can borrow as books readable online.

  • The Star Trek Encyclopedia
  • I Am Spock
  • Beyond Star Trek
  • The Star Trek The Next Generation Companion
  • Star Trek: Aliens and Artifacts
  • Trek: The Next Generation
  • Get A Life
  • Star Trek: Chronology
  • The Star Trek Compendium
  • Star Trek Speaks
  • To The Stars
  • Star Trek Movie Memories
  • Star Trek Celebrations
  • Star Trek Memories
  • The Making of Star Trek
  • Star Trek Creator
  • Shatner (his 1970s autobiography)
  • The Star Trek Interview Book
  • Star Trek and Star Wars Collectables
  • The Man Who Created Star Trek
  • Star Trek Worlds

As you can see, it's a bit of a mother lode really - and it's all free to access. Plus that isn't included several more books which I already had access to via Questia. Because it includes two books on Gene Roddenberry, as well as two very early books (the interview book and the making of star trek) I'm seriously considering having a go at that article. But there is plenty of sources there for all manner of things. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) to be moved to The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Brannon Braga on Twitter

Brannon Braga has been tweeting (@BrannonBraga) stuff about Voyager and Enterprise; with his account being verified, would his tweets be considered reliable sources? Some examples:

  • "Archer was Future Guy. He was manipulating his own destiny from the future. But why...? " [5]
  • "I'll admit killing Trip probably wasn't a great idea. " [6]
  • "Human Error - the last Voyager I wrote - was intended to set up her death. She learns she can never be fully human." [7]
  • "True. I thought 7 of 9 should sacrifice herself to get her crew home. She was a tragic character. Bad idea?" [8]

— fourthords | =Λ= | 03:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought so. I've certainly used newsgroup posts (as recently as yesterday) from cast and crew as sources. The only suggestion I would make is that you'd probably be better off quoting the tweet in the cite itself as well. I've just had a look at WP:TWITTER and I think that tweets from Braga would meet the criteria. There is a cite template for twitter already. Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I hope you don't mind but I ended up nabbing the death of Seven of Nine tweets for Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager) as I found a related story in a back issue of Dreamwatch I was browsing for anything interesting to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

TNG season 6

In that page it says in a section about supposed "departures from Roddenberry's Utopian view of the future" , among other things it says that they encounter "pirates" which was absent from Trek universe until that episode.... and I disagree with that... I, Mudd titular character hijacked the Enterprise for his own vessel, that is a very pirate like activity, and after Khan assumed power he was going to "take the enterprise" in Space Seed, seems pirate like to me... and the Ferengi, which were created while Roddenberry was alive, are very pirate like in general, they want gold, they want to salvage your ship? I mean come on... I really don't think that statement is correct in its assessment of a complete lack of "pirate" characters/activities, and that statement should be removed from the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B122:143C:A7E6:D75D:42B1:6274 (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're quite right - I've just removed those mentions. The season six article's prose is completely uncited to sources. As for the pirates thing - "Pirates of Orion" pretty much sums it up, and that was developed under Roddenberry. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For no real reason ...

... other than that it is logical, {{emoji|270D}} renders ✍. LLaP. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification

There are a few redirects to Star Trek that I've nominated for RfD today; please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7 and give your input. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Gamesters of Triskelion

There's currently a discussion at that article, over weither or not to apply a Notability tag. GoodDay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 28 January 2015

Nomination of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Status

Hey everyone, I just thought it might be interesting to see where graphically we are as a WikiProject on the Star Trek episodes and movies. By this I mean, how many we have promoted to GA/FA. I'm going to leave out all the character articles etc as those are a variable number (for example, whether or not Rom from DS9 should have his own article depends on the volume of information available, or else he'll get wrapped up into a relevant minor character article for the series. I also haven't touched on books either, or the fan productions (as we're yet to have any of those promoted to GA/FA, although I would like to get a Star Trek: Continues episode worked up just because I enjoy them so much. Anyway, here goes:

Films:

The Original Series

The Next Generation

Deep Space Nine

Voyager

Enterprise

Overall episodes

So infinitely more work to do, but progress is being made with every article improved! Miyagawa (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability tagging on Time's Arrow

I'd appreciate it if interested parties could offer an opinion on this discussion. There was a recent AFD on the subject (with the intention to either redirect the article or reach a consensus that tagging it was appropriate). Most pertinently, in the discussion it has been claimed that "the community has long since decided that all episodes of certain television series are per se notable". I'm not aware of such a discussion having occurred previously and have asked that a link to that consensus be provided. Thanks for any input! DonIago (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Diana Muldaur

So I wouldn't normally leave input on a wikipedia article but after reading the page about star trek crossovers I couldn't find any mention of Diana Muldaur "Dr Pulaski", and I found that a little strange. I know she played two different doctors on TOS and seeing as how they mentioned other actors who played different characters on various Star Trek series I thought for sure I would see her name on there,and when I didn't it made me wonder who else the page was missing? sincerely and avid Star Trek fan who is looking for more info about Star Trek crossovers 08/30/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A04:2AB0:ECB9:CC69:48C4:6EA5 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You can check this site.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

First season episode numbering query

This has come up at a couple of episode articles, and I thought easiest to bring it here to discuss. As the first episode of the non-TOS shows have all had a double part pilot, how does the numbering go? Are those episodes both episode one and two as they've been broken into after the initial broadcast, or do we stick with the original numbering and have them only be episode one? Miyagawa (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars

Help on editing Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars would be appreciated. There are questions over the neutrality, e.g. it may be too pro-Trek. The quality of the sourcing has also been questioned. See the talk page for more on this debate. Finding additional sources that directly compare the two and/or better working in the existing sources would be welcome. Fences&Windows 20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

linking the season number in the infobox

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) recently went through and linked the season number in the inbox for all Voyager season two episodes (e.g. [9]). I've not seen this done anywhere else on the English Wikipedia and wanted to know what the project thought about it. I also asked at Template talk:Infobox television episode#linking the season number, but it doesn't look to be heavily trafficked. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually did it for more than just season two of Voyager: I did it for every season of all the Star Trek shows (except Enterprise but, I was planning to get to it next week). My thought process was that it will just make the pages easier to navigate. Sorry if it shouldn't be done that way, it just seems so minor, I really didn't think anyone would mind. If it's a problem and anyone wants to undo it, I won't object. I'm heading out of town for the weekend but, will check this when I get back and, if not undone by then (Monday), will assume it's okay to continue on with Enterprise. Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
(I replied at the other page as well)Cebr1979 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This just seems so bizarre to me. I honestly can't think of one single reason why linking to the season would be detrimental in any way? However, since it bothers some (although, again, I really can't see why nor how anyone took the time to even notice something so minor), I won't do it again. I won't be spending time undoing the ones I've already done, though. It just seems so trivial.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

fourthords: Hi! Just a friendly notice that I'm going to start doing this again because there's nothing anywhere that says I can't and there's no feasible reason not to... other than you don't like it but, that's just not a valid reason to tell me I can't. There's no reason not to do it. None. Like, at all. And you saying, "Don't 'cause I said so" is worthless and holds no weight. Grab on to your hat! Wikipedia's about to get a whole lot more clickable! Toodle-oo!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


"The Adversary"
Episode no.Season 3
I don't see the point of linking at all, especially because of the way that it appears in the infobox. In the example to the right, only the "3" is linked, so it's hard to see that there is a link at all. The average reader would expect a link to work if he or she clicked anywhere in "Season 3" but that doesn't happen. It seems a pointless exercise to link as it stands now especially in the case of "The Adversary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" as Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (season 3) redirects to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 3 (1994–95), meaning there is absolutely nothing to be gained with this link. Admittedly though, I'm more concerned that these articles exist in their present form. Many are unreferenced and fail WP:PLOT. Instead of linking unnecessarily, perhaps Cebr1979 could instead concentrate on getting these articles to a level where they won't fail at AfD. Otherwise it's going to be a case of "Grab on to your hats, kids! Wikipedia's about to get a whole lot less Star Trek episode articles." --AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
AussieLegend: I'm just gonna continue doing what I feel like doing not doing what you feel like I should be doing or what you don't see the point of. You've given not one single reason why it shouldn't be done other than "I don't really get it so it shouldn't be 'cause like you know" which is just not how wikipedia (or life) works.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"What [you] feel like doing" is not what should be driving your actions. We are here to build an encyclopaedia and adding pointless links is not a constructive part of doing that.
"You've given not one single reason why it shouldn't be done" - Actually, I have given more than one reason why it shouldn't be done. It's an ambiguous link because only the actual season number and not "Season " is linked. It's a pointless link because it doesn't help the reader. You are linking to season articles that have been redirected. The link goes to an episode list that doesn't provide any more information to the reader than the episode article does. It's actually you who has not provided a single reason why it should be done. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I've responded to you elsewhere. If you wanna keep multiple conversations going over one thing that never should have even had one conversation started about it, knock yourself out.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, other editors think that the discussions should have been created but, for simplification, all discussion should be at Template talk:Infobox television episode#linking the season number. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Anniversary year!

So, what are people's plans for Wiki this year? I'd like to see if we could get a whole DYK set going for September 8 - which will be the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of "The Man Trap". I've been working up that episode to GA standards, and it's going through a review process now. But I'd like to get it up to Featured ready for front page use on that day. If that doesn't happen in a worst case scenario, we already have "Space Seed" at FA now for a backup.

I've also been working extensively on Gene Roddenberry and finally today got around to do a major content split from it that I'd planned since August. I've nominated it for GA once again, and hopefully it'll go through this time. It is also tempting to get it up to FA as well, since October 24 is also the 25th anniversary of his death.

Other stuff I'm working on include trying to get the fourth season of Enterprise to become a good topic. As it stands, there is just Storm Front (Star Trek: Enterprise) and United (Star Trek: Enterprise) in the way. I've also been working on a new version of the main Enterprise article in a sandbox (User:Miyagawa/sandbox2) if anyone is interested in taking a look. The major pain I've got on that one is the lack of a source for the broadcast ranking in the third season. If anyone knows of one, please let me know!

But overall, we're looking in good shape. 13 Featured Articles, 5 Featured Lists and 113 Good Articles, and of course Portal:Star Trek is also featured. Mind you, some pesky person thought it was a good idea to start broadcasting new episodes this time next year, so there will be a host of articles that'll need to be created then. I think that is a chore we're all looking forward to! ;) Any other thoughts on ideas to celebrate the varieties of Trek anniversaries this year? Miyagawa (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Consistency

I have noticed an inconsistency in Star Trek: The Next Generation page names. Take season one, about half of the pages here are without the ending tag of (Star Trek: The Next Generation), in order to move them I have compiled a list of redirects here that need to be deleted, I was going to ping an admin to do the deletions but I figured I'd better ask here first.
Mlpearc (open channel) 02:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, kind of the other way around: the goal is to simplify article titles as much as possible. The "(Star Trek: The Next Generation)" disambiguation text is only needed for ... disambiguation purposes. In the case of e.g. Skin of Evil, the only article about that title is the TNG episode, thus no "ST:TNG" parenthetical necessary. If Loreal or Noxema had some sort of notable skin-care product with an identical name, then some sort of disambiguation text would be necessary. The_Neutral_Zone_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) is a good example, since there are all kinds of other uses of the phrase "[The] Neutral Zone". If anything, the naming issue is "[[Episode title (Star Trek: The Next Generation]]" where there is no other content for [[Episode title]], e.g. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" needs to be removed from the article name. At some point many years ago, we did an vast "overcorrection" to append Star Trek dab text to article titles, but we've since come to our senses. I think the names settled down properly, but there might be outliers still. --EEMIV (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad I asked :P , thanx. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Duet Plot Summary On Wikipedia

It incorrectly states that Kira initially asks to interrogate the prisoner. But initially she thought the arriving passenger was going to be someone liberated from the camp, and she wanted to go greet them. Only once she saw he was Cardassian did she want to interrogate him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.60.171 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion in Star Trek article suggestion

Reading the articles of Religion in Star Wars and Religion in The X-Files, gave me the idea for Religion in Star Trek. It could also be called Philosophy and Religion in Star Trek as the case with the SW article. Is anyone here up for starting it? I could contribute.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk)

There's a Philosophy and Star Trek book out there I read years ago, and if you mined the themes sections from the movies and Miya's episodes you might have something too. That said I'm not sure how great an article it could be if a large part of it is just heads talking about their own pet theories (the Star Wars analog is not particularly great either.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, if you are willing and able to get some sources on how has the franchise treated matters of philosophy for the last 50 years. The Ethics section at least should be fascinating as the subject is about the matters of "good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime". Star Trek has already given its own definitions of evil through its depictions of the Mirror Universe, and contrasting this universe's evil twins with their supposedly virtuous mainstream counterparts. Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There's some stuff in the Gene Roddenberry article that might be of use, and in particular at openlibrary.org there is a copy of Roddenberry's Final Conversation where he talks extensively about what religion means to him and Trek. The one major religion that we saw lots of and would be covered in the official texts would be the Bajoran one with the prophets and pah-wraiths etc. Miyagawa (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We could also create sections on the Klingon religion, the Vulcan religion etc. That way people won't confuse one with the other and learn more things about each.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good plan, just remember to keep it real world rather than in-universe. Miyagawa (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa:It can be both In-Universe and out universe so people can see the religions and which series and films of Star Trek they are found. Most of it must be out of universe, but some in-universe material would be essential to explain some of it and where it's found--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely - but it must be written in a real world fashion rather than purely in universe. See WP:INUNIVERSE for guidelines. Miyagawa (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oldag07:You might be interested in discussion here--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nadirali: No one is stopping you from writing it. As mentioned earlier. I don't have the time, nor the interest to write one. I just wanted to be helpful. Whoever writes an article like this needs to be careful not to violate WP:ORIGINAL, hence the suggestion of expanding Memory Alpha rather than Wikipedia. Oldag07 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion in Star Trek article

Good evening. I created the Philosophy and religion in Star Trek article. Please help in improving it. There's plenty of sources for this. I even added a friendly search template in the talk page to help dig out sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review

I've listed The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Stardates Conversions in List Articles

Colleagues,

I'm seeking consensus on some changes made to list articles by a new editor. In a pinch, @Rdnicholson: would like to add conversions for the stardates already listed there so as to provide real-world dates. Initially this was completed by mistakenly using the citation system so that they all appeared as references (although they weren't references, or even referenced). I undid those changes, but it was brought to my talk page.

I figured rather than let it descend into an argument between two editors with differing views, I felt that I should bring it here for a consensus. As I see it, the stardates are difficult to convert (as explained on Stardate) since different series have used different means of conversion over the years - in fact, TNG used part of the stardate to refer to the season, not the year.

I personally don't think that we should include stardates at all in the lists, per WP:IN-UNIVERSE, but I'm happy to be overruled on that. But I feel even more strongly that we shouldn't be introducing unreferenced information that has never been officially converted and wasn't referred to in the episodes themselves. I've pinged Rdnicholson, so he can present his counterpoint here. Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely these conversions should not be included unless they are made explicit by a reliable source. This is blatant original research at worst and synthesis at best. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
As with Doniago, I agree with your sentiment, Miyagawa, not to do any sort of conversion; 'tis the path to WP:OR. --EEMIV (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

AOL chats hosted at Memory Alpha

So it turns out that some folks involved in the production of Star Trek hosted chats on AOL back in the 1990s. These chats were then posted on a Geocities site. Before the site was taken down, staff at Memory Alpha saved the chats there. Is there any feasible way at all to cite these chats as reliable sources? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've used the Memory Alpha location in a GA before specifically for those chats, but I certainly wouldn't seek to use that on FA as it'd get shot down in a heartbeat. I immediately thought of WikiSource, but these are still under copyright unfortunately. I know some of the chats can be pulled from the official Star Trek website using archive.org (they changed the design around 2007/8 and dropped all the older information from the site then), but MA still has the AOL Chats that aren't (and never were) there. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The City on the Edge of Forever

I've just completed a week long overhaul of "The City on the Edge of Forever" in preparation for the 50th anniversary. It needs a proper copyedit yet as I'm sure there's plenty of Miyagawa-isms and British spellings in there to be found. I also need to do a research trip to the British Library to have a read of The Music of Star Trek to cite that section, unless anyone here has a copy and could do it for me. Once that's done, I think we should be ready to put it up for a Good Article nomination. Miyagawa (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

John G Hertzler/Martok Star Trek: DS9

John Hertzler's Wikipedia article is noted as being part of the Star Trek WikiProject, however, there is no "importance rating". Can someone please notate the importance rating on his article? He was a major recurring character seasons 4-7 of DS9, and John played a total of 10 characters among DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. I can't contribute other than to provide info as I'm his publicist, and we're very close personal friends. We have a CoI so I can't contribute. --JGHSMC (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem: [10] — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusions in production section of the main Star Trek template

Please see and comment if you wish at Template talk:Star Trek where production entries are being disputed and discussed, including Lucille Ball whose page (and the Desilu page) need more sources about their major role in Star Trek. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

We now know that Star Trek: Discovery is on the way in January! First visuals on the USS Discovery today - looks very Star Trek: Planet of the Titans/Ralph McQuarrie-esque to me. I'm sure we'll hear about that in the coming days and weeks. Miyagawa (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reboot series named the "Kelvin Timeline"

A discussion about renaming the "reboot series" the "Kelvin timeline series" has been made at here. Please add your input. Oldag07 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Structure of Spock

Not exactly an RFC, but I would like to invite editors to take a look at Talk:Spock#Structure and content of this article. Miyagawa (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

My bold edit for the quarter...

I've probably mentioned it before, but I've been working on a version of the Star Trek: Enterprise article in userspace. Well it finally became time to put it into mainspace. So please go take a look, and make any appropriate edits. I might throw it at GAN after it's had time to settle in and see if it sticks - I think it's covered all the main points but happy to hear about any missing elements and we can get them added in. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a cursory skim (but lingered on a few sections) and it reads great! Good work! --EEMIV (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The next replacement I'm working on is for Deep Space Nine (space station), which is currently located here: User:Miyagawa/sandbox4. Miyagawa (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, even though the edits aren't appearing on the main project page, I'm attempting to tidy up "The City on the Edge of Forever" at the moment. Please do take a look and revise any nonsense I've slipped in. I haven't copyedited it yet since I'm still adding stuff, so I'm sure there's plenty of mistakes and British-isms in there at the moment. I'm thinking about giving the Enterprise article another week and then throwing it up at GAN and seeing what happens. Miyagawa (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'm going to nominate the Enterprise article now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to note, it ended up being promoted - the first series article (well, excluding Phase II which never went into full production) from the franchise to reach GA. Miyagawa (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Front page for Sept 8, 2016

Hi, I was wondering, Star Trek's 50 years is on September 8, 2016 and I was wondering if an article could possibly possibly hit the front page then. Pyrusca (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There's currently an effort (at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Man Trap) to have The Man Trap as the featured article of the day on the 8th. There are also 13 prompts (at T:TDYK#September 8 (Star Trek anniversary)) waiting to be the "did you know" entries on the same day. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok. Personally i was hoping for something else, like Spock going from B to FA status real fast, but that might be a dream. sigh. Pyrusca (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we've got pretty much total front page domination for the first time ever for a single project. There's "The Man Trap" at FA, two full sets of DYK hooks and Today's Featured Image is the recently promoted crew shot in front of the Space Shuttle Enterprise. This has never happened before in the history of Wikipedia, although has been previously theorised. No doubts someone will complain in the main page talk page on the day, but it's all been approved already. Development of Spock has been approved as a DYK hook and has an image suggested, so hopefully that'll be one of the lead hooks there. Miyagawa (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Tis only once every 50 years, they can't complain much... good job Miya! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A nice start-up article already under deletion threat

In poking around I came upon a recent start-up page which is already quite detailed, The Klingon Way, which is under a deletion threat. Please have a look at it, applaud in Klingon, add some edits, and maybe drift over to the deletion discussion. Randy Kryn 16:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Could use some eyes and fingers over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Klingon Way, where the article's main writer keeps improving the page, and the more he improves it the more tags are placed on it and more WP:THIS and WP:THAT's are being thrown at him. Life is a battlefield, at least at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Klingon Way. Randy Kryn 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe you're presenting a biased view of the matter. As many of the participants at that discussion have noted, the core issue is that none of the third-party sources being added to the article discuss the book in a significant manner. The easiest way to moot the discussion would be to provide third-party sources that provide substantial coverage. Unfortunately, I and several other editors have our doubts that such sources exist. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Randy Kryn see WP:CANVAS. Widefox; talk 14:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the Star Trek project, so calling somebody on canvassing here seems unusual. And as for the note above yours, the editor fails to say that one of the main issues in the discussion is if the Journal of the Klingon Language Institute and the Klingon Language Institute itself constitute good sources. The Journal has been shown, by the original editor, to be an unbiased source, to have been professional in nature, and that the institute has named The Klingon Way as a canon in the field. This seems to be an important book in the Star Trek universe, and making the point that it is under delete threat to the members of the Star Trek project doesn't seem like canvassing, and if it is then it's an odd way to run a project. Randy Kryn 14:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe the question is whether they're good sources, I believe the question is whether they're independent sources. And as they wouldn't exist except for the Klingon language existing, I think it's evident that they're not independent. DonIago (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
A language has to start somewhere. No language institute or journal would exist if the language didn't exist. Nobody at that Institute invented the language, or wrote the book in question, so they're as independent as any French language interpretive Institute or journal. They call the book canon. Do you mean that "independent" on Wikipedia means "not related at all in any way whatsoever to the subject"? If so, then maybe millions of articles wouldn't exist and millions more would be looking over their shoulder. Randy Kryn 19:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that last bit sounds a bit hyperbolic to me, but as for the first part, I do mean that the concern is that there aren't sources that don't have a vested interest in the Klingon language talking about the book. Put another way, we expect Amazon to "talk" about movies because they're in the business of selling them. On the other hand, if the New York Times discusses a movie, that's more significant because there isn't a direct relationship. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Randy Kryn WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification "Message" / WP:CANVAS#Campaigning. Widefox; talk 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I really didn't know that there was such a thing as canvassing on a project page, especially one as related to the deletion page as this one. Should I strike the language used? And stop answering comments in this section? Randy Kryn 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone care to expand Kirk and Uhura's kiss for 5x DYK nom?

I created it by merging content from Uhura and Plato's Stepchildren; it was not even mentioned on Kirk's page. Unfortunately for DYK merging existing content does not count as creating a new article so it would need to be 5x expanded, and I don't have time to do this right now. If anyone does, it would make for a nice iconic ST item for our Main Page. Missed the anniversary a bit, but still... If not, we could aim for a GA. Have about a year until the event's 50th anniversary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Numbering clarification on TNG article

Hi there. A week ago, I asked on the TNG talk page (Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation#Inconsistencies in numbering) for better clarification of the numbering, but it seems no-one's spotted it. Can someone take a look and clean up the wording please. 2.124.86.240 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ProD Disaster (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

This episode has been proposed for deletion. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've remove the PROD. A quick GNews search shows at least 2 reviews from AV Club and Den of Geek, and mentions in various ST books. The PROD is not warranted on this, though these sources alone wouldn't prevent an AFD on this article. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lt. Ayala

I've been working my way through Voyager, and often consulting our articles on the series, usually to try to identify guest stars, who can of course be hard to recognize with alien makeup on. Soemthing I've noticed is that a great many of these articles list "Tarik Ergin as Lt. Ayala" as a guest appearance, when the write up on that character states that they are in fact in nearly every episode, much more often than the other named extras. So, it doesn't really make sense to me that these should be considered guest appearences. Or alternately, he's an extra, and extras are usually not listed in Wikipedia articles at all. Either way, I would suggest that these listings be removed, but before doing anything I thought I'd pop by here first in case opinions differ or this has come up before. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Crickets abound in the halls here. Alien crickets to be sure, and they do sound of worlds to come. Unless I'm mistaken a 'guest appearance' is an industry contracted term, and even major characters on television shows are sometimes credited with a 'guest appearance'. Can that be the case here? Randy Kryn 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I do't recall his name being in the opening credits with the other guest appearances, but I can double check a few and see if that maybe is the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have checked the episode "Faces" (as I have been working closely on and have gotten it to the level of a good article last year) and while I was re-watching the episode, I noticed that Tarik Ergin's name does not appear in the opening credits with the other guest stars. Not sure if this helps at all, but just wanted to add that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Aoba47, is he perchance listed in the end credits? I know sometimes they stick the additional guest stars there. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not remember seeing his name in the end credits, but I can double-check later. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Aoba47, I've just checked the end credits of Endgame, and he doesn't appear there despite being listed on the guest list on-wiki. I think it's safe to say he's not listed on any of the other episodes. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Do you think he should be removed as a guest star from the episode articles? Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just filed the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I've watched almost the entire series now, and I still don't even know which extra this is, I don't think they ever even say his name. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Journey to Babel

The article Journey to Babel needs improvements. I just stumbled upon an FFD discussion about the episode screenshot and reviewed the article. Anyone here interested in improving the article? --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness GA nomination

Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated Star Trek Into Darkness for good article status. Any help to make the necessary changes would be appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 02:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

New Cushman Book

Hey all, I thought this might be of interest - Marc Cushman has announced a follow up to the three part These Are The Voyages, with access agreed to Gene Roddenberry's private papers to cover the 1970's. This will cover the period including Star Trek: The Animated Series, the various pilots he worked on as well as Star Trek: Phase II. It's stated that it'll be published later in the year. Miyagawa (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, nothing's showing up yet on his Amazon.com page. I'll try to keep an eye out for it. How did you hear about it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
They announced the collaboration on he publisher's Facebook page. Also an autobiography by Lawrence Montaigne. Miyagawa (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Might be helpful to improve Phase II and TAS; don't see much needed for additional detail in TMP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My edits keep getting reverted

I've been adding full names to the articles of several Star Trek characters.

Christopher Pike (Star Trek) - Christopher Richard Pike [6]
Hikaru Sulu - Hikaru Kato Sulu [7]
Jonathan Archer - Jonathan Beckett Archer [8]
Kathryn Janeway - Kathryn M. Janeway [9]
Leonard McCoy - Dr. Leonard Horatio McCoy [10]
Robert April - Robert Timothy April [11]
Sarek - S'chn T'gai Sarek [12]
Spock - S'chn T'gai Spock [13]
William Riker - William Thomas Thelonius Riker [14]

Each time I tried to add these names, most of them kept getting reverted. The first time, Materialscientist told me that my citations were incomplete, but after I added chapter numbers and page numbers to my citations, it got reverted anyway by different users.

Titodutta told me that he thinks "the article was better before I made the change", which is not a valid reason. Later on, he told me that my edit was "unclear" and he was "unable to verify it", which makes no sense because this information can be easily verified by doing a Google Books search.

Dr. K and SonOfThornhill told me that this information is non-canon, so it doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. When I asked them to show me a policy to back up their claims, I was ignored. I've checked Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and it doesn't mention the word canon at all, so there’s no reason for my changes to get reverted.

I ask that I be allowed to make these edits, since they are consistent with Wikipedia policy. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Handlen, Zack (April 9, 2010). ""The Naked Now"/"Code of Honor"/"The Last Outpost"". A.V. Club. Retrieved July 25, 2013.
  2. ^ http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/star-trek-the-next-generation/22738/revisiting-star-trek-tng-the-naked-now
  3. ^ Epsicokhan, Jamahl. "Star Trek: The Next Generation The Naked Now". Jammer's Reviews. Retrieved July 25, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.kethinov.com/startrekepisodes.php?series=2&season=1&epnumber=3
  5. ^ http://www.aoltv.com/2006/09/08/star-trek-the-next-generation-the-naked-now/
  6. ^ Carey, Diane. Final Frontier. Pocket Books, 1988, Hope and a Common Future
  7. ^ Asherman, Allan. Who's Who in Star Trek #2. DC Comics, 1987, page 33
  8. ^ Martin, Michael. A., Beneath the Raptor's Wing. Pocket Books, 2009, page 168
  9. ^ Graf, L.A. Caretaker. Pocket Books, 1995, Chapter 19
  10. ^ George, David. R., III. Provenance of Shadows. Pocket Books, 2006, page 532
  11. ^ Cox, Greg. Captain to Captain. Pocket Books, 2016, page 209
  12. ^ Hambly, Barbara. Ishmael. Pocket Books, 1985, Chapter 19
  13. ^ Hambly, Barbara. Ishmael. Pocket Books, 1985, Chapter 19
  14. ^ David, Peter. Q-Squared. Pocket Books, 1994, Last Stop: Chapter 4
The novels have never been considered canon in Star Trek(unlike Star Wars); different authors might use different middle/other names for characters. In my opinion the articles can certainly mention the names of the characters as given in different novels, but those novels are based on the characters as written for TV, so it is the names given in canon that should take precedence. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If different writers give different names, then both names should be listed in the opening sentence as has already been done in the article List of students at South Park Elementary: "Clyde Donovan (originally Clyde Goodman and briefly Clyde Harris)". Even in Star Trek canon, a character can be given two different names; Deanna Troi's father was called Ian Andrew Troi in one episode and Alex Troi in another. Besides, it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon since Wikipedia doesn't have a canon policy. Novels and TV episodes are equally valid. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Novels and TV are not equally valid because you don't have the characters in novels without the characters on TV. 331dot (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion and its replies have been transplanted from the Administrators' noticeboard where it was closed with a message saying that WikiProject Star Trek is a better place to post it. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's commonly accepted that the only information in the fictional universe of Star Trek considered canonical is that which appears on screen. It may be useful to mention that these names were provided in novels, but I'd like to see third-party sources to establish that they were considered significant in some manner. Otherwise, where do we draw the line between novel-based information that's appropriate for inclusion and that which is too speculative for inclusion? DonIago (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Non-canon" simply means that the writers who make future Star Trek stories are not required to be consistent with it, but they can choose to be consistent anyway, and they often do. The names Hikaru Sulu, Nyota Uhura, George Kirk and Winona Kirk first appeared in novels and only later appeared in movies. Just because these other names haven't been mentioned onscreen yet, is no reason to treat them differently. "Non-canon" doesn't mean that it's less true or less significant than something that's canon. Both the novels and TV episodes had to be approved by CBS/Paramount prior to release.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too speculative". All I'm saying is that if a character's full name appeared in a novel, it should be included in the article's first sentence regardless of whether or not it also appeared onscreen. I'm not suggesting that we open the floodgate and include every minor detail that ever appeared in a novel. As for third party sources, I know the name Leonard Horatio McCoy appeared in the DeForest Kelly biography From Sawdust to Stardust. I'm not sure about the others. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Paramount/CBS do not approve all novel and TV content. Novels have never been considered canon; they are indeed 'less significant' in that there is nothing holding future writers to things established in novels and the novels are not (with a few exceptions) created by people involved with the TV/movie production of Star Trek. I agree with Doniago that mentioning the names is fine, but it should not be in the first sentence. This will cause readers to think those are the characters official, canon names when they are not. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Readers will read the citation and see that the name comes from a novel. I don't think readers would care about "canon" and "non-canon". These concepts are only relevant to writers of future Star Trek stories. A non-canon name that hasn't been contradicted by canon should be treated as "real" in my opinion.

And CBS/Paramount do have to approve of all Star Trek novel and TV content that gets released. They are the owners of Star Trek and they need to make sure that writers don't put out anything that might damage the brand. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

CBS/Paramount check for brand issues but do not micromanage content. Readers do care about the name of the character as created and used by those who actually own the character as opposed to names created by those making licensed products. It is simply incorrect to equate the two and suggest they have the same status. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and this is just pushing me further toward thinking that any name not even discussed in an out-of-universe source shouldn't be discussed in WP due to lack of significance. It might be worth reviewing WP:IPCV, as I think the novels could arguably be considered "In popular culture"-style content. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that IPCV seems very topical to this discussion. Thanks for posting it 331dot (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Canon is a lot less important than many Star Trek fans think. Many science fiction franchises (like the Doctor Who franchise, for example) don't even have a canon policy and they make do just fine. I still think that most readers aren't going to care about this canon stuff, but I don't think I can convince you about this.

Since you do agree that the names should be mentioned (just not in the first sentence), can we discuss in what part of the article they should be mentioned? I would prefer that they are mentioned in the opening paragraph, before the contents. A reader should be able to see both the canon and non-canon name as soon as they open the page, and they can decide for themselves if canon is important to them or not.

I don't think "in popular culture" applies to licensed tie-in novels. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Have been reading this discussion, and good for you for doing the research and in your persistence. I agree with those who say that the non-canon names should not be in the lead, and probably the best place for them would be in the novel sections that I believe most basic characters have on their page. I could write a book Data and the Klingon Chocolate Factory in which I could say that Data is actually named 'Data Wonka' (which I believe to be true), but readers would be upset and claim that Wikipedia is inaccurate if I put that name in the lead. Better to identify the name with the novel, but it is good that you've pulled out some of those names to expand Wikipedia's fairly extensive Star Trek collection of articles. Randy Kryn 14:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree. I have no objection to non-canon info being included in an article, if given the proper context. However, non-canon information does not belong in the lead. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. Non-canon information might have a place in the article if given the proper context, but that place is not at the lead. Dr. K. 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, can one of you add these names to whichever part of the article you think is suitable? --NetSpiker (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

italicization of series' initialisms

On 26 October, I raised the issue (at WT:ABBR) of whether or not to italicize initialisms when that which they're shortening would otherwise be italicized. I asked because I wasn't sure whether I should be italicizing "TNG", etc. Nobody replied. Then at the article Ishka, on 18 February, Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) italicized some—though not all—Star Trek series' initialisms in the article ([11]). I reverted them, citing what I saw as "site-wide SOP [standard operating procedure]", and I implored the other editor to contribute to the indiscussion at WT:ABBR. They did, and even tried to involve editors they thought would have insight to bring, but there's been no further input in the previous month. Could any experienced editors please weigh in there as this affects many articles on which our project works? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For your amusement

It´s important to discuss these things: [12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Faces" FAC

Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated "Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager) as a featured article candidate (here). Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not going to comment on its suitability as an FA, but wow, I wish all Star Trek episode articles had that level of detail! DonIago (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I tried my best with this one, and I would love to work on more "Star Trek" episode articles in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_8&oldid=1137363767"