I have slight issue with using RT on an older film like this. First, it is limited in the number of reviews (38) that it has, thus saying that the film was positively received in such a broad sense is fine when you have that other source to verify it, but you have that statement followed by the RT information which gives the wrong impression (i.e. that the 38 reviews is proof of that). Secondly, these reviews are all from the past 8 years (the oldest goes back to 2000). What I see is intermingled past and present day reviews, with the RT data coming before it all. I think you need to address the film from a historical stand point first (the reviews from when it was released) and then come back and say, "When the film was reviewed again in the early 2000s..." Also, the link for the comparison of the Star Treks just goes to the search engine, but it is being used to say that this film is the highest rated of the series. I don't know if this rating is from Rotten Tomatoes, or if RT is comparing the ratings of all the critics on each of the films. If that is such, then again you're presenting modern day opinions as if they were always there. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, why don't you be a kindly soul and just copy and paste the exact responses that answer my issues - I shouldn't have to navigate through countless statements to find what may or may not answer my question. Aside from that, I highly doubt that the FAC answers the issue of why the link that supposedly compares the Star Trek films only goes to the RT search engine. Maybe a little less attitude and a little more assistance would be better. It wasn't like I challenged the FA status, I'm merely bringing an issue I saw when I was looking at the page to light. Since I didn't even know about the FAC, one should assume that I don't know that my issues were address there. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Act like what? You've been giving my attitude since your first comment. No where in my initial comment did I act like some ass who wanted to sabotage the page. I came here with legitimate concerns and you immediately tried to bite my head off for what I can only interpret to by your misguided assumption that I'm trying to hurt your baby. For an admin, you have some serious civility issues. If you don't wish to actually address my concerns, that's fine. Trust me, I'll be sure to remember your outstanding camaraderie in the future. In the mean time, could you please show me where on the search engine it lists the RT scores. File:ScreenRT.jpgHere is what I see when I look at the link. There are no RT scores there, and that is looking at the very link that is on the article page. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
How is "I suggest you read the FAC" some sort of attitude? I simply thought that your concerns were addressed there, and directed you to it. It's your own fault you take every comment as some sort of incivility. Get a grip and stop yelling at everyone then claiming victimization. Also, please do not post unlicensed images on Wikipedia. As for the RT question, they apparently redid their search so it doesn't have the same output. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
David, this will be my last response on the matter of your attitude. First, it was the "I suggest you read the FACs" comment that was rather snide, because it assumed that I knew that it was addressed there. I didn't, so why give the attitude with it? You could have easily have just said, "Someone else had that argument in the FAC, and it was addressed there, but to save time I'll just say that "blah blah blah...fill in the response that would have addressed my concern". As for this yelling and claiming victimization, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I never yelled (do you see any CAPS or exclamation marks in my comments?). I've actually been rather calm with you. And the "victimization" is just bullshit. I called you out on your attitude and your response is to delete an image I posted (for your benefit) and again, instead of being courteous, you chose to address my actions with snide comments (i.e. you could have said, "Oh, I see what you're talking about. I'm going to delete the image now since we shouldn't keep unlicensed images on Wikipedia). But then again, civility with me doesn't appear to be one of your strong suits. It amazes me that other editors would be willing to work with you given your snapping attitude. Now, for the more important comment of this banter: What are you/we going to do about the link? You just admitted that they changed their search engine features so the page clearly does not verify the claim it is being used to verify. You haven't taken any action since you acknowledge this. Are you going to remove the statement, find a new source, or just leave it in there?
This is one of my concerns with using RT for older films, because it often gets used misleadingly to suggest that a film had a better reception than it actually did. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came off as "snide" to you, but frankly I don't care much, especially since you seem eager to jump at someone for the slightest infarction. Steve's oppose did address the issue you seem to have, that RT is being used to cite the favorable reception; it is merely bolstering it, there's an entirely different source used previously to source the statement previously. I've gone ahead and removed the "highest ranking" bit because I can't seem to generate the output anymore. I find it amusing you call my remarks snide and yet say "I wasn't yelling, I didn't use caps". Questions answered, everyone happy? Now take your little essay-spouting, holier-than-thou attitude and go elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, to try and get back to the issue at hand, we have two editors that think the 92% is misleading and perhaps slightly POV and one who has no problem with it. This may be covered in the FAC, but since we are narrowly focusing on a single issue here, could you perhaps give your reason why you think using the 92% RT figure in the article is not misleading? This would help us get to a resolution here I think. Indrian (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, this conversation has dried up. At the moment, I see a consensus of 2-1 in favor of removing the 92% figure from Rotten Tomatoes and no attempt to defend the inclusion of said figure on this specific talk page. I'll give this one another 24 hours for further discussion, but after that I am going to remove the sentence describing Rotten Tomatoes scores because it has little to do with the reception of the movie upon release since many of the reviews are recent. Indrian (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a good time for another editor to step in and offer his opinion. I agree with the original poster that the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate should not be used. I do not think this in any way invalidates the FA status of the article and believe there are plenty of sources listed to uphold the claim of positive reviews, but using the Rotten Tomatoes number is misleading, even when the article makes note of the small sample size, because these are not all contemporary reviews. I did peruse the two FAC nominations, though I addmittedly did not read them in detail, and it appears to me this was not an issue discussed much at the time. I realize Rotten Tomatoes was at the center of Steve's protracted oppose argument, but it seems that was more about not having enough sources outside RT, which I agree was corrected. Mine and the OP's complaints are focused on using that 92% number as a source proving favorable reception. I think it is misleading at best and inches into slight POV territory at worst. Indrian (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The RT link works fine for me. The issue at stake is whether or not the RT aggregation appropriately shows critical response for the film given that RT aggregates retrospective reviews (far more likely to be considered favorable)? Is that it? Protonk (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the one that was at issue (it used to have all the films and their rankings, but now it just returns garbage, so it's been axed.) Whether or not the RT aggregation shows contemporary critical response is irrelevant as the contemporary reaction is already cited right before it. I could move the placement of the sentence to the end of the paragraph if that really bothers people, but I still fail to see what the issue is here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have two issues with the number. First, the sample size is so small that I am not sure that having the number really adds to the article. My bigger concern, however, is one of structure. The first sentence states the movie was critically well-received. The second sentence bolsters the first sentence using the 92% number. This is misleading, however, because the reviews are largely contemporary and therefore have nothing to do with reception at the time of release. I do not dispute that the movie was well-received based on the other information in the article; I merely dispute the use of the 92% as misleading by making the reader think that the reviews at RT were contemporary with movie release. Moving it to the end and clarifying would fix that particular issue, but I still wonder at the value of the number in the first place because of the aforementioned issues with sample size. Moving and clarifying would be, however, an acceptable compromise as the POV issue would be solved. Indrian (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, some element of trust has to exist, rotten tomatoes didn't exist at the time of the film's release (the same is true for many other older films whose wikipages use that aggregator as a metric). I trust that users can make the determination that the rotten tomatoes score doesn't reflect reception at immediate release literally. The sample size issue doesn't bother me in the slightest. If we are concerned enough about methodology to complain about sample sizes, we should be horrified at the prospect of RT's main job: reifying prose reviews into inputs on a 1-100 scale. The question then becomes, do we make it clearer (by moving the RT sentence to a later point in the 'reception' section) that RT shows reception now, remove it entirely, or do nothing? Protonk (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the main issue for me. Is there any value to the information that 38 critics taken from a combination of newspapers and blogs and representing only a small portion of over one hundred sources RT tracks and mostly reviewing the movie from the 2000s forward liked the movie? It really does not prove the movie was widely acclaimed critically, because the sources are not drawn from a wide group or represent most of the important critics of the time. Other sources are already used in the article to prove the critical acclaim, so what do we gain from the RT number? It would be helpful for me if someone could articulate what value using this number brings to the article. Indrian (talk)
A few things: I understand the main complaint. Since we deal in "facts" and not opinions, we are more inclined to post something in the article that appears to be a statement of fact ("Among reviews aggregated by RT, 92% were judged favorable") than something which appears to be a vague assertion ("The movie was critically well received"). This leads us to privilege those 'factual' statements too much. But here I'm inclined to cede to habit--we use the RT metric in most movie articles I can think of (where it makes sense), RT usually provides a good mix of critics (confounded here by the age of the film and the softening of critical appraisal over time), and the sample size is pretty reasonable. 38 critics is more than enough to prevent the result from being impacted by outliers and we should note that the 92% favorability rating syncs up pretty well with what we would expect. If the RT breakdown was 100% or 30%, we would be more cautious about outliers skewing the result. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with both of your positions as to usefullness, but this is not really a big deal, and truth be told we have all probably wasted more space on the talk page than the issue deserves. Seeing no real consensus it appears best to just leave it in at this point, which I will certainly not loose any sleep over. Indrian (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I made a change that was reverted, left a note on the user's talkpage, but seems he doesn't read his talkpage, so I'll paste the relevant info here too. Khan was not exiled from earth, as the "Plot" section said. Following are quotes from TOS:Space Seed.
At 10:45 into Space Seed, Spock explains why it would be completely illogical to assume these people were exiled in this ship
Spock: "If you're suggesting this was a penal deportation vessel, you've arrived at a totally illogical conclusion."
Kirk: "Oh?"
Spock: "Your earth was on the birth of a dark ages, whole populations were being bombed out of existence. A group of criminals could've been dealt with far more efficiently than wasting one of their most advanced spaceships"
Here's a quote from Space Seed (20:02 mins in) where he and Kirk are discussing who Khan is:
Spock: "By my estimate there were some eighty and ninety of these young supermen unaccounted for when they were finally defeated."
Kirk: "That fact is not in the history texts."
Spock: "Would you reveal to war-weary populations that some 80 Napoleons might still be alive?"
Further quote, from Space Seed, from an exchange between Kirk and Khan (at 25:57) indicating that Khan left on his own. Khan doesn't deny he fled, only denies he was afraid:
Kirk: "You fled. Why? Were you afraid?"
Khan: "I've never been afraid."
Kirk: "But you left at the very time mankind needed courage."
Khan: "We offered the world order!"
Kirk: "We?"
There is no indication whatsoever that Khan was exiled AFAIK. I have reverted back to my orginal edit. Please explain how "exiled" could possibly be correct before reverting this edit. --Despayre(talk)00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
References
What is with the weird referencing style? The cast section features a whole load of references that just go to a line in the Notes section that doesn't reference any source, unlike any article I've seen before. I was going to delete this link to nowhere (since the cast is pretty much self evident from the film, no reference required) but I figure since it was done repeatedly there might actually be a reason for it. -- Horkana (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've seen other articles that use the title "Notes" for the {{reflist}} instead of "References" (they can be retitled as "References" and "Further reading" to avoid that mess) but I'm asking why add a reference to each cast member that seems to do nothing more than point to the bottom of the page. Other articles use the references to point to an actual source, a web link, or a book. Specifically the named reference "cast" in this article at best serves only as a navigation link and provides no additional content for readers to follow. -- Horkana (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's pointing to [Star Trek cast and crew. (2002-08-06). Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Directors Edition: Special Features. [DVD; Disc 2/2]. Paramount Pictures.] That is an actual source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)17:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That's very unusual and not especially clear. From your description I see now the Notes section provides headings (hard to recognize as such since they are formatted as plain text) that readers are supposed to somehow know refer to another place further down the page and then read on, manually scroll down to the "References" section and find the corresponding heading. This is quite unlike most articles where the {{reflist}} would say directly right there and then the source is the New York Times or Special edition DVD commentary, etc. rather than separating out the source to another place on the page that is not clearly and unambiguously linked to it, some of the sources are done that way in fact the reason for a source getting split out to the References section rather than being included in the directly in Notes section seems ambiguous and arbitrary. Shouldn't what is currently labelled References be just for books? (That almost seems to be the case in the article for Star Trek: The Motion Picture.) -- Horkana (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well it's not the most common way to do it on Wikipedia, but it's still legitimate, in here and academic circles. In this case the main reason is that it's citing multiple pages from a single source. Using separate cite templates for every instance, every page, would just be impractical. I don't believe there's any specific guidelines over using notes or references but take a read of Wikipedia:Layout#Notes and References, specifically the image which uses the same structure as this article. Bottom line, it seems you're just unfamiliar with this method of citing sources, doesn't make it wrong. Rehevkor✉20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with it yes I suppose, hyperlinks have me spoiled so having to follow the dots and make the connection myself feels too much like unnecessary work. I guess it is reasonable enough when citing a book and also citing many individual pages from that book, without having to repeat the book each time. Splitting the out a reference to a single magazine article, or chapter of DVD commentary doesn't make quite so much sense, which doesn't seem to be done very often even in the other Star Trek film articles. If a DVD commentary or behind the scenes chapter was referenced with lots of specific timestamps I can perhaps justification to make the same split. That split wouldn't be so bad if there was a hyperlink to connect the two pieces together just as the reference on the page does. Thanks for the explanation, no I know what's going on I can move some of the non-book references out of there, since there's no compelling reason to make readers jump an extra hop for it. Thanks, so many rules so hard to keep track of them all. More automated checking would be such a help. -- Horkana (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been queried on the citation scheme before and my answer is still the same. All references that are used a significant number of times I place in the references section, while shorter and one-off citations are simply placed in the notes. This is the scheme used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek III, Star Trek VI, and Star Trek VIII; to say it's not used in the other articles is incorrect. It's an accepted method of citation; I see no compelling reason to change it (it has passed by four and counting FACs with no complaints.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a lack of clarity and "reader friendliness" when it comes to getting from the label in the Notes to the detail in the References/Further reading section. The guidelines mentoined above suggest the use of "Further reading" as the subheading and the examples use books. When you say "a significant number of times" there is no consistent objective way to apply that, and since there is a usability penalty to that layout I would suggest restraint, and say stick to doing it just for books where the split does improve overall clarity. -- Horkana (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:CS#Shortened footnotes mentions several reasons. One such reason about long quotes (Shakespeare) is not consistently applied. If you were also changing those references to tidy up the article and not just blocking my change it would not seem like you were being hostile. If there was more consistency and predictability to deciding what goes in further reading I wouldn't argue with you, but for article that don't cite only the article as a whole and don't even make two different page references then there's no good reason to split them out. My changes (and I'm pretty much done by the way) are there to keep the flow simple, when no split is needed, when an individual pages are not referenced. Please explain how you are going to do it so that I can be sure you aren't just picking on my changes and intend to format the Footnotes consistently. -- Horkana (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
They are formatted consistently; there have been discussions about this in the past, and the choice to split up pagination and notes and refs in such a manner is practiced in books as well. Furthermore the MoS says to stick with the adopted citation scheme—i.e., this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)01:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you were being consistent then why not include the Hamlet quote, it is both a book and clutters the ordinary reference list? You are arbitrarily singling out my changes to be reverted rather than moving it forward. You are selectively interpreting the guidelines (MoS) and applying to the journal American cinematographer even though those articles are only referenced once without specific page references. -- Horkana (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Because not every book has to go into the references list, just as not every ref that's duplicated has to either. I'm reverting your changes because they go against the established citation scheme for all the developed Star Trek film articles; your only reason for reverting is "I think it makes more sense this way". Deal with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You completely misrepresent my position. I'll say it again, there is no point separating the reference for an article mentioned only once with no page references. The American cinematographer articles do not make separate page references, splitting them out is an overcomplication and you've failed to justify why they would be split out. -- Horkana (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Which I'm planning on fixing when I've got access to the source again. Perhaps you should go and do something productive with your time then fighting over a legitimate referencing style? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If you'd made any other edit to the article besides reverting my changes in the last two days I might be able to take your comments about seriously. Telling me to "Deal with it." isn't very reasonable it just reinforces that you aren't making your point logically and only want to enforce an awkward academic referencing style that reduces clarity. This whole discussion started because the "legitimate" academic style of separation wasn't as clear as leaving the reference in the directly in list. I acknowledge for source with many page references (even any page references) it can be clearer but you have failed to give any justification for splitting them out and making things less clear in the cases where the source is reference only as a whole. -- Horkana (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Chekov Plot Hole
Was looking through the references and noticed that the IGN article on the Directors Edition was referenced twice for the one short article (and was not cleaned up and into the References section to avoid the duplication.) The article mentions the director addressed the Chekov plot hole "He does actually address the huge plot hole in the movie where Chekov wasn't introduced into the series until a year after the Khan episode, yet somehow remembers the whole event". Various explanations of the plot hole are mentioned in the article are mentioned but the directors explanation doesn't seem toh have been. Ideally rather than referencing the article which is indirect it would be better to reference the real source. As far as I can tell the article is referring to the directors DVD commentary and not an additional scene or anything else added to explain the plot hole. Can anyone check this edition of the DVD and include the directors explanation of the plot hole? -- Horkana (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty weak, I thought there would be more than just him proverbially shrugging his shoulders and effectively saying continuity errors happen. Not actually addressing (as in dealing with it) the plot hole so so much as simply acknowledging it was there. I had hoped the DVD revealed more than that. -- Horkana (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This and other Star Trek wiki pages make it seem like the only way to see the original theatrical releases of these movies is to use Blu-ray, while in fact it is possible to buy them in a DVD set (I think the same set as the Blu-ray collection). If there are no objections, in the next few days I'll start making edits to the home release sections to make that more clear.
I have found many sources calling the new Star Trek movie sequel Star Trek 2. While I have also found many sources stating that it is Star Trek 12, I am going to put up a hatnote on this page to reduce confusion.
The shear number of secondary sources calling this planned future movie,Star Trek 2, and the fact that paramount already has a release date for it makes it valid. It isn't like we are replacing Star Trek II with a disambiguation. Merely placing a hatnote. Oldag07 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think once the new film has an article (which it will shortly before or directly after the production gets rolling) a hatnote would be appropriate unless they give it some wonky title. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Even one of the producers called it "Star Trek 2". [2] I am not super attached to the hatnote, but I think it is still appropriate. Oldag07 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It is now 2012, and "Star Trek 2" is indeed in production, but will probably not be released as "Star Trek 2" in summer 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.34 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The hat note is present not because the new movie is called "Star Trek 2". It is there because there is good reason to believe that some people (post Star Trek 11 fans) who type in Star Trek 2 will be looking for the new movie, not The Wrath of Khan. Enough sources are calling the unnamed sequel "Star Trek 2" to justify the note. Oldag07 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Sowards' story
I reverted the edit to the lead which included a new source from The Huffington Post[3]. My reasons are twofold. First, it's a bit wordy to stick in the lead. Secondly, the source is a secondhand account of Soward's interpretation of events; this interpretation seems erroneous given the multitude of sources in the article that state 1) that the death scene was moved due to pressures other than Soward's creative vision; 2) that the final script was actually written by Meyer--how much of Soward's words remained in unknown, but while he was still officially given the credit, he's not The Wrath of Khan's writer in as far as what was actually shot; and 3) Soward is not mentioned as being the one who approached Nimoy with the death scene idea in any of the other sources. As this isn't exactly as credible a source as others, I'm hesitant to put it in without serious qualification. I'll also want to recheck the other sources again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is missing any information about the Genesis cave set: where that was filmed, any CGI or matte backgrounds used, etc. —howcheng {chat}07:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously none of the rest of us did either... However, since you had the interest/background information, I thought I'd make the suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
There might be some information in the sources I have, although I don't have immediate access to them. As to what they were, there's no CGI--it's set extensions and then I believe some hand-painted additions to elements like the waterfalls. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture's bad box office performance?
Article says Star Trek: The Motion Picture performed badly. It is sourced to DeForest Kelley's biography (Rioux). I don't have access to this source, but in another source, The Making of Trek Films (Gross et al.), the impression is that they were pretty satisfied with how popular the movie was - and based on numbers in IMDb and Wikipedia, it looks like a very successful movie. The budget was huge, of course, but I think allegations of bad box office performance should be removed. Mstuomel (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter of the film does well by an outside threshold if it doesn't meet the targets the studio execs put out. Also, we don't have a good breakdown for if the $40-something million budget actually contains all the expansive marketing and merchandising they sunk into the film (which wasn't equalled or surpassed until--arguably--the 2009 film.) Add to that the canard that films usually have to make back double or three times their costs to be considered a success, and I don't think it's hard to see why they were upset and why they considered it a disappointment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The 'bad box-office performance' lie sounds like something some petulant Trekkie concoccted, cause he was resentful that someone did better with the Trek franchise than his precious Gene Roddenberry. One more reason all known and convicted Trekkies should be purged from Wikipedia and their lies deleted.75.91.240.184 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)ArbCom
Influence on the reboot
There doesn't seem to be much (if any) mention of WoK's influence on the new reboot series. WoK was echoed numerous times in Star Trek (Kirk cheating on his Kobayashi Maru test, the apple bite lifted straight from the Regula scene, etc.) and the return of Khan story (replete with Carol Marcus, a core character death following an heroic warp drive repair, etc.) is core to Into Darkness. Had I read this article with no pre-existing knowledge, I would have left completely oblivious of this "legacy" as it were. There must be plenty of interviews with Abrams and Lindelof citing WoK as a source/influence/inspiration. danno_uk22:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That's because Abrams and his two trained-monkey scriptwriters ripped off the far-inferior Nemesis, which was a bastardization of the Wrath of Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.240.184 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Use Of Denigrating Term "Trekkies" In Article
To insist that the term "trekkie", when applied to fans of "Star Trek", is common is nonsense; I defy anyone to go to a Star Trek convention and address the attendants as "trekkies" - they will be TOLD to leave, not asked. Even if Wikipedia (and its various iterations) were edited solely by an august group of acknowledged experts on all subjects (read "authorities"), it is incumbent upon those editors to avoid name-calling (ie -"trekkies", which is denigrating in it diminutive labeling of Star Trek fans, as if they are inferior persons). ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.116 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a response to the notion that the term "Trekkie" is a denigrating or insulting term. I am not sure where the above user gets this information, or if this is simply his/her personal opinion, but the term Trekkie has always been the common term for a tar trek fan, going all the way back to 1966 when the show first came on. I am old enough to remember his first hand, and have attended many conventions, participated in online communities, etc. The term has always been Trekkie. While there are some folks who started using the term "Trekker" in the 80s and 90s, Trekkie remains the norm. Currently there are a Facebook pages for "Trekkies" with memberships in the tens of thousands. Even Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry after being corrected by a fan, is credited with having said "No, it's Trekkie. I should know, I invented the thing." If the above user dislikes the word and prefers not to accept that label, that is fine, but it is still remains a personal opinion and not something on which to base a Wikipedia entry.
Peace Whitelitr (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is some coverage of this at Trekkie#Trekkie vs. Trekker which may be of interest. I'm pretty sure there are irrational fans in both groups (can a group of fans who would throw someone out of a convention just for using the wrong term really claim to be the rational ones?), but that's irrelevant. As for the use of the term here, I don't see why we need to use it, especially if "Star Trek fans" sounds more encyclopedic, but I'm ok either way. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The original source uses "Trekkies", so absent a pressing reason to change it I don't see why we should avoid it. "Some people take offense" doesn't seem an argument that holds weight (or should) on Wikipedia, especially as it's not an established blanket fact. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, just because one fan decided to take offence at the term, which is a common name, there is no need to change the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Confusing wording
I'd like to change this, except that I don't know what it's trying to say!
"Leonard Nimoy only reprised his role as Spock because the character's death was intended to be irrevocable."
Are you saying he "only reprised it" as opposed to, I don't know, truly continuing it, because the intended irrevocable death precluded a more complete continuance of the role? This is how it sounds when I read it; however, I don't know that "reprised" actually carries that connotation of being "less than original."
Did it originally say something like "only reprised his role because his death was unpopular with audiences; initially, it was intended to be irrevocable"? That would make a lot more sense.
Right now, it seems to be implying that the major reason Nimoy returned to play Spock again was because the character is supposed to be dead... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be better to say "Leonard Nimoy reprised his role as Spock content with the death of his character."Greg (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, "Leonard Nimoy only agreed to reprise his role as Spock after being assured that his character's death would be irrevocable"? Assuming that fits what the sources are saying. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the point that sentence is trying to make is Leonard Nimoy was reluctant to return as a cast member for Wrath of Khan, and he only agreed to return because he had been told Spock's death at the end of Wrath of Khan would be permanent, meaning he wouldn't have to return as a cast member in any future movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.164.209 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The cast section provides this (with refs that are not readily accessible): "Nimoy had not intended to have a role in The Motion Picture 's sequel, but was enticed back on the promise that his character would be given a dramatic death scene. Nimoy felt it was logical that as Wrath of Khan would be the final Star Trek film, having Spock "go out in a blaze of glory" would be an appropriate way to end the character." I have rewritten the confusing line discussed here based on that section. Is it any more clear now? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Nimoy had not intended to have a role in The Motion Picture 's sequel, but was enticed back on the promise that his character would be given a dramatic death scene."
This wording is far more accurate than what is currently in the lead. I've seen several interviews with Nimoy on the subject and he denies that he ever made Spock's death a condition of his doing ST2. I suggest this wording replace the current inaccurate statement in the lead. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me if that wording (which is now repeated in 2 places) is the only wording that's really accurate - I've made the change. My attempted rewrite seemed like a good mix of the previous wording and the content from the Cast section, but if it's not accurate, it's not accurate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nimoy denies the agreement over Spock's death
The Wikipedia article states that Nimoy was enticed to the second film with an agreement that Spock would have a dramatic death scene. This entry is cited, but Nimoy states in the commentary for the opening of the third film that this is a rumor and was never part of any agreement. I personally think that Nimoy's statement should be included in the article as well. I don't know how to cite the commentary from the film, it's probably copyrighted, anyway. I just thought I'd leave a note here if someone with more Wikipedia fluency cared enough to find the info and cite it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c201:565c:8a6:9210:5a16:243f (talk • contribs)
It was during the opening of the film, so within the first five minutes. This is in Nimoy's solo commentary. My version of the film came with two different commentaries, and I think Nimoy was on both, but had a partner on the second. I believe he mentions it twice in the first, and again in the second commentary, but I assume the first quote would be sufficient.
Error in plot - there was no distress call from Regula I
In the plot it states:
"Kirk assumes command after the ship receives a distress call from Regula I."
I think it's reasonable to interpret Carol's interrupted transmission to Kirk as a "distress call" for the purposes of keeping the plot summary simple for readers. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 3 external links on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Just a response to the notion that the term "Trekkie" is a denigrating or insulting term. I am not sure where the above user gets this information, or if this is simply his/her personal opinion, but the term Trekkie has always been the common term for a tar trek fan, going all the way back to 1966 when the show first came on. I am old enough to remember his first hand, and have attended many conventions, participated in online communities, etc. The term has always been Trekkie. While there are some folks who started using the term "Trekker" in the 80s and 90s, Trekkie remains the norm. Currently there are a Facebook pages for "Trekkies" with memberships in the tens of thousands. Even Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry after being corrected by a fan, is credited with having said "No, it's Trekkie. I should know, I invented the thing." If the above user dislikes the word and prefers not to accept that label, that is fine, but it is still remains a personal opinion and not something on which to base a Wikipedia entry.
Peace Whitelitr (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)