Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


Need for more rational ship names (and articles)

I was surfing through (and fixing) some Star Trek "ship" articles and I noticed problems that keep cropping up.

  • Naming these articles with starfleet ship designations (NCC-#####) makes it REALLY HARD to search for and distinguish a fictional ship or topic from a real one in a Wikipedia search page. Unless you are a trekkie its hard to tell you are looking at something fictional from it's NCC number and/or if you are looking for a Star Trek ship its hard to tell which one it is. i.e. an article should be titled USS Voyager (Star Trek) and not USS Voyager (NCC-74656). The former name gives you an obvious clue as to what the article is about when seen on a search page. The later seems to violate Wikipedia's fiction guidelines as well.
  • A lot of the ship articles and sub types cited within suffer from the same fiction problems. They may tell you its about a fictional universe but it fails to tell you in the first paragraph what specific fictional work (citation) its from and its plot relevance in that work. Halfblue 16:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the first point. Searching for 'USS Voyager' gives a two item disambiguation page, the second item of which is "USS Voyager (NCC-74656), a fictional starship that was the primary setting for the television series Star Trek: Voyager.". It's not hard to find the one you're looking for from that. Using the registry numbers makes each one unique. A page like "USS Intrepid (Star Trek)" covers three known ships - Constitution class Intrepid, Excelsior class Intrepid, and Intrepid class Intrepid. "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)" would be a nightmare - this would make searching harder, not easier. Using the registry numbers makes each article unique. Disambiguation pages make it easy to tell which one you're looking for, and using the registry numbers allows people who do know the field to go easily and immediately to the one they're looking for.
Regarding the check your fiction, the Wikiproject clearly needs to work harder to make the first paragraphs relevent. That can be amended with work. --Mnemeson 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the problem:
  • If I “search” for “Voyager” using the typical tool an average user would--> Wikipedia’s search box, I get 9876 hits. I may or may not be looking for that ship with Janway on it. And even if I did narrow my search by adding “USS” as in “USS Intrepid”, it gives me 231 hits with 16 on the first page masquerading as what I may want. It would help the encyclopedic function of Wikipedia if I can cull out what I want or don’t want just by reading the titles. You have to think of the people who are not looking for USS Voyager --> that Star trek ship as well as those who are.
  • Notice how the thing in (parentheses) is for the most part descriptive, a short word phrase or date that gives a quick clue to the person culling many topics with the similar names on Wikipedia. (NCC-74656) does not serve that function.
  • The title USS Voyager (NCC-74656) is a fiction. Just as lead in paragraph for an article should not contain excessive fiction I think it is implied that the title of an article should not be a fiction. The title should be non-fictional and give you a clue as to what it is about. For example there is “Bob Russell (The West Wing)” not “Bob Russell (Vice President)”.
  • Hull numbers in (parentheses) seem to be a naming convention on Wikipedia for real ships WP:NC-SHIP
  • Hull numbers also seem to be describing the ship from an in-universe style WP:WAF which clearly states "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."
In cases where more than one ship exist, say "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)", giving an NCC number is not going to help clearity for the uninformed searcher even if they are looking for a Star Trek ship since NCC numbers are very “deep in the universe”. The show its self even gives the solution. I don’t think I have ever heard a character say they served in the “NCC-1701-D”; they just say Enterprise-B, Enterprise-C, Enterprise-D. So that would be "USS Enterprise-D (Star Trek)". Another solution is "USS Enterprise – NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" It’s not the numbers I personaly see as a problem. It is the titles that masquerade as something else to the average searcher.
Titling something USS Voyager (NCC-74656) may make sense in a Star Trek tech manual but it may not be the best thing to name it that in an encyclopedia. Halfblue 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see your points, but I'm not sure that the proposed solution helps with all of them, and I still think that in some circumstances it would make organisation harder.
  • If this person changes their search to 'Voyager Star Trek' (which isn't unreasonable if you want to change the article title to 'USS Voyager (Star Trek)', there are still 1479 results. Short of creating the article to test it, I can't be sure of how the search routine would rank the newly named article, but as things stand, the top result is "Star Trek: Voyager", from which the page as it is is a single well labelled click away. If they're just searching for 'Voyager', the name change probably won't help them all that much.
  • It's not the most accessable way of description, but use of the NCCs is highly descriptive (for people who already know - I'm not claiming it's directly helpful for a casual viewer). USS Intrepid (Star Trek) covers three distinct ships (actually four, I forgot the one in Enterprise, one of which has its own entry, two of which are redlinked. What happens to those? Merged into a single article? What about when more substantial things share a name? USS Defiant (Star Trek) should logically link to DS9's 'Defiant, but the original series Defiant served a major part in "The Tholian Web", and we learned even more about it in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Only the Enterprise, with the ability to go Enterprise-A (Star Trek) has an obvious solution to that. At this point, many articles would be left with the same titles.
  • One of the benefits of Star Trek over The West Wing is that it's slightly harder to confuse with reality - an article of Bob Russell (Vice President) might genuinely have people wondering why they didn't hear about him in American History 101 - they're more likely to understand off the bat that warp capable starship articles are articles about works of fiction (at least, I hope so ;-))
I originally thought that Halfblue's notes on various ships' talk pages were just annoying (sorry), but after pondering 'em for a bit, I've changed my mind; both suggestions seem worthwhile. In terms of the naming convention, parenthetically adding Star Trek to the title would be in keeping with other Trek-related articles. Although there are instances of multiple vessels with the same name, most of them (and of course the ship classes) are unique. Some of the shared ship names could possibly even be condensed into a single article (just a thought). But, in general, "USS Voyager (Star Trek)" seems more apt than what we have now. I'd suggest keeping the registry number in parentheses for vessels like the Enterprises and Defiants, e.g. "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)". --EEMeltonIV 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Redundant lists

Do we really need multiple lists along the lines of List of Star Trek ships and List of Starfleet ship classes? These are essentially the same article simply ordered differently (and both of them needing some love), but the former list has a few Klingon and Romulan vessels at the bottom. Do people think it would be a good idea to merge these two together? --Mnemeson 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Move articles to match naming convention

I am working to improve Star Trek Voyager articles and have found that many of the articles do not match naming convention. For example Kathryn Janeway should be at Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) surely. i wont change anything until told to ofcourse. --Mad onion 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got a concensus forming above - looks like Article name (Star Trek), and in cases of multiple articles with the same titles, something else that distinguishes them, e.g. USS Intrepid (NCC-1631) (Star Trek), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)... does that look right to people? That way, Appalachian would be USS Appalachian (Star Trek), Janeway would be Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek), the Intrepid class testbed would be USS Intrepid (NCC-74600) (Star Trek), etc... hehe, I just realised how much moving is gonna be in order when we decide on this ;-) --Mnemeson 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good to me (see two headings above). --EEMeltonIV 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds great, well i wont do anything for now but as soon as there is a consensus i will start dealing with it for Star Trek Voyager. thats what im trying to improve for now. btw, how is a consensus reached. Im new here so any help would be appreciated. --Mad onion 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to put "(Star Trek)" after all starship article names, I don't see why we need to put the registration number in parentheses. For example, can't we have "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" - having two lots of parentheses looks messy and seems unnecessary. While we're talking about the move, what do you think about naming them "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" rather than "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" so they appear exactly as the names do on the ships themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marky1981 (talk • contribs)

The two parantheses, I've been thinking the same for a short while now, and I think you're right, it looks messy - USS Enterprise 1701-D (Star Trek) would be neater. Inserting the periods, I have to admit to being a lot less keen on - I honestly doubt anyone would try to access the articles by typing them in, so it would make finding the articles harder. No naval ships on Wikipedia that I'm aware of use the periods inside the prefixes (although I don't know if official documentation about them uses the periods in those cases). I also feel it starts to look messier again, which it would be good to move away from. --Mnemeson 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i think the dots would look messy. also, when i begin to move articles i will make the article with just the name a redirect. so for example i will move the article Kathryn Janeway to Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) but will make Kathryn Janeway a redirect to the new article. --Mad onion 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there also some consensus that ship names that only appear once (e.g. USS Prometheus, USS Stargazer) can eschew the registry from the article title? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) -> USS Stargazer (Star Trek)? --EEMeltonIV 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think so, yeah --Mnemeson 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As tempting as it is, there's no need to go through articles to append (Star Trek) to links to ship names -- the redirects will take care of it (and I think I got all, or at least the fast majority, of double redirects yesterday). Add "(Star Trek)" if making other edits, although even then it's not essential. --EEMeltonIV 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Registry

The USS Prometheus (NX-59650) article addresses this to some level (and there is debate on the talk page, but unfortunately there's no consistenty as to which should be used. The Prometheus articles themselves (ship and class) use NX-59650, but other articles linking to it refer to her as NX-74913. Actually, the Prometheus class article uses both registries - 59650 at the top, and 74913 at the bottom, with no comment on the conflict. 59650 was only used on the external hull, while 74913 was used on all displays, etc, but the external hull is vastly more visible. Although I think 74913 is more likely to be right, I don't mind which we settle on it, but it would probably be good if we could settle on one, instead of the current very confusing situation --Mnemeson 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a title for the plot summary in each episode?

This is something that seems to be different depending on what Star Trek you look at. for example Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode) doesnt have any title and simply breaks the plot up with the spoiler line. while voyager episodes have a title like Faces (Voyager episode) in this example "Story line" is used but it seems to change depending on what you look at. is there any kind of guideline I can follow so all episodes are the same? i really dont mid what we use, but i think there sohlud be an agreement on what to do here. --Mad onion 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Flashback (Voyager episode) is a good example of how to organise episode summaries -
Title, position in series
Summary of any notable non-spoiler points
'Plot'
Summary of teaser
Spoiler notice
Summary of rest of episode
I do agree we should standardise this - at the moment, it's all very haphazard. I wanted to get a load of Voyager episode summaries done this summer, but time unexpectedly closed up.--Mnemeson 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
oh well is good to know there is someone else who is working on voyager. i am going through all episodes that currently exist and making alterations to try and standardize them and i have done a few plot summaries but they do take a while. but yes we do need standardization I dont know how to go about acheiving this though. --Mad onion 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek article

I just majorly changed the main Star Trek article. I'm wondering what people think, and what else needs to be done before nominated for FAC (since I tried a Peer Review and no one commented, I thought this might be a better forum). Newnam(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Fictional Spacecraft}}

If anyone is willing; They could help me update the ships to use this new infobox. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Renamed to "Infobox Fictional Spacecraft" per the category. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-universe perspective cleanup needed

Here is what I am seeing in a lot (most?) Star Trek articles on Wikipedia:

  • the birth and death dates of fictional characters.
  • plot synopsis framed as biography.
  • performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles and devices.
  • an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations.
  • fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

Whats wrong with that? Wikipedia considers that specificaly non-encyclopedic. It is all laid out in WP:WAF. I see some cleanup where citations have been added to in-univeres articles but that seems to fall way short of Wikipedia guidelines. If you write an "in-univeres" article with citations or add citations to an "in-univeres" article you have --->an "in-univeres" article with added citations. Although using a prose style like that can sometimes be acceptable Wikipedia asks that it be used in small sections and maybe not at all since an out-of-universe perspective "will make make it more accessible to those unfamiliar" with the work in question (Exceptions).

annoying ;^)Halfblue 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I have a question about article naming at the Lost articles, which it looks like you have already discussed, so I could use some opinions. At the Lost episode article, Talk:Fire + Water there is a discussion about whether to move it to Fire + Water (Lost). This would make it consistent with the other article titles at Category:Lost (TV series) episodes. However, some people argue that appending the series title is an unnecessary disambiguation. The Star Trek precedent is repeatedly being cited, so if there's anyone here who would like to offer an opinion, your presence would be much appreciated at Talk:Fire + Water, thanks. --Elonka 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit funny..

Anyone realise that Image:IKS_Vor'cha.jpg is actually the toy version of the Vor'cha? Soemone needs to take a proper image from an episode, or if i have time then i will. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Starfleet ship classes AfD

Hey all. FYI, List of Starfleet ship classes is up for deletion. --Fang Aili talk 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)of

The Ashes of Eden

The Ashes of Eden article is currently filled with empty placeholders. Can anyone clean this article up and fill in the relevant information? shotwell 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stardate or calendar date?

Hey. Many Trek articles are inconsistent as to whether they use stardates or calendar dates. Calendar dates seem to be more accessible to the casual reader; stardates aren't particularly informative for those same casual readers. For we be including stardates at all? Would anyone like to nod their way that, at the very least, we should put the more-accessible calendar dates before, if at all, mentioning stardates? I point you toward the Jean-Luc Picard article as an example -- lots of stardates put before calendar dates, but really if want to put things in temporal context, even compared to other Trek stuff, the actual year is far more useful to me than #####.#. So . . . . ? --EEMeltonIV 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Reborn

Could someone from the STWP have a look at Star Trek: Reborn ? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What is a "virtual internet series" anyway ? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "virtual series" are just people writing stories in a series like format (20 eps. etc) - There are tons of them, that is no more notable then the rest, AfD it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - it's writing fan fiction in script format and imagining people in the parts - nn, afd tag added. Discussion is here --Mnemeson 13:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode "The High Ground" needs some attention

Eh, Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I hope that there will be some Trek experts here who will know the details of the TNG episode "The High Ground (TNG episode)". Like I said in the talk page there, I think this episode article needs to be brought up to standard, especially as it is a quite notable episode (being (AFAIK) the only one that was ever banned). I can't really write allot about it myself as I only ever saw it once, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to expand it. Thanks.--Hibernian 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

High Ground rewrite in process =

Should be up shortly. Wikidenizen 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

starship articles.

All ship articles where disambiguated with (Star Trek) on the end some time ago -- this really isnt necessary for a fair few of them and hence they need de-ambiguating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Most of the active editors of this discussion have agreed that television episodes should follow Wikipedia's general disambiguation guidelines — specifically, that episode articles should have disambiguation phrases in their titles only if there is another article that might share that title. So it would be appropriate to disambiguate, for example, First Contact (TNG episode), but not A Fistful of Datas. It is also recommended that redirects be created with commonly used suffixes, for ease of linking and lists — so, if A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) were moved to A Fistful of Datas, the former link would continue to work.
A debate has arisen over whether the guideline should explicitly mention that certain WikiProjects (such as this one) have standards that are contrary to this guideline. The primary argument for mentioning this is the precedent this WikiProject has set; that is also the argument against it. The concern is whether this precedent is a good one or not — it is contrary not only to the guideline being formed at WP:TV-NAME, but also contrary to existing policies and guidelines at WP:NC, WP:NC(CN) and WP:D. Some reasons for maintaining this exception have been proposed, but these largely seem to be aesthetic (in particular, a fondness for consistency in titling within a subject — which, however, causes a greater inconsistency in Wikipedia as a whole). I have attempted to summarize the reasons given at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions, along with counter-arguments. I would very much appreciate it if members of this WikiProject would respond there, to see if there is an argument that I have missed, or a response to my counter-arguments that I have not considered. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(Followup) Comments are requested in the debate on whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia. There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Kronos One

I need someone to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos One. It looks like it'll be deleted, but if there's an appropriate list page it could be merged into, that would probably be better. EVula 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Italics

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) and I have had an exchange on our talks pages about whether/when the italicize starship names. MF has gone through several Trek articles un-italicizing ship names, citing from the MOS that "Italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Emphasis). As such, his approach seems to be to italicize a ship name when it is first mentioned. I contend, on the other hand, that all instances of all ship names should be italicized, citing from the same page but a different section that we should "Use Italics for titles of [ . . . ] Ships such as RMS Titanic" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Titles). MF accurately points out that that section says nothing about space ships or fictional ships. However, a quick glance at Star Wars- and Battlestar Galactica-related pages show italicized ship names, as does sample text in Wikipedia's own section on Writing About Fiction. As for ship names, the shuttle Challenger and Challenger component of the Apollo 17 mission are italicized in their articles. Although we shouldn't necessary do things just 'cause others do, there seems to be an unwritten consensus that ship names, whether real or imaginary, whether terrestrial or spaceborne, in all mentions, are italicized.

Additionally, MatthewFenton objects on aesthetic grounds to consistently italicizing ship names, suggesting that strings of multiple italicized ships' names would look ugly? bad?. His hypothetical instance is "The Enterprise fired at Voyager while Saratoga fired at the Negh'var who in turn fired at the Sydney who also fired at Deep Space 9." My response is to look at the Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Midway, which include several strings of ships' names -- again, we're not all lemmings, but those articles' edit histories and talk pages don't have a pushback against the MOS because of aesthetics. Additionally, in response to what I think is a strawman argument, I suggested the strawman response that a better solution in instances like the hypothetical is to write a better sentence.

Anyway, I'm hoping that those who keep an eye on the meanderings here can weigh in and we can reach a codified consensus to put on the project page as to whether we should italicize ship names and, if so, whether to italicize all instances of a ship's name or just the first. I suggest Yes to the first and All to the second.

The relevant back-and-forth between MatthewFenton and I is mostly on my talk page, although at some point I stopped duplicating my responses on my page and posted only on his. Please let me know if I missed salient points, either from our back-and-forth or things I/we didn't mention.

Yes, I realize just how embarrassing it is to have an online discussion about whether names of make believe air-filled metal tubes should have slanty letters. --EEMeltonIV 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


First of all, I think you'd be better off preserving the aforementioned original discussion here, or at least archiving it, but not deleting and summarizing it. As for my feelings on the debate:
  • The fact that MOS:ITALICS and MOS:T don't explicitly mention fiction does not in any way necessarily exclude fiction. Non-exclusive language should be considered inclusive unless there is specific guidance/precedent to the contrary, which there isn't here (quite the opposite).
  • Again, the fact that they don't explicitly mention spaceships does not in any way necessarily exclude spaceships. See the above note about non-exclusive language. Again, precedent actually indicates inclusion.
  • The various Manuals of Style are guidelines, yes, and are not set in stone, but "not written in stone" is not the same as "entirely optional". They should definitely not be ignored arbitrarily.
  • WP:WAF includes a header which states that it is (1) part of the MoS, (2) considered a guideline for Wikipedia, and (3) was reached by consensus. It is not just one editor's personal preference.
  • The concocted example sentence may look awkward, but it's still proper, regardless. Style guidelines take precedence over personal aesthetic preference, given that they're consensus.
  • MOS:ITALICS makes it clear that the instruction to use italics sparingly applies to emphasis. Other uses like titles and ship names are not emphasis. It's standard English writing style.
Oh, and I see nothing wrong with debating encyclopedia articles on fiction. Fiction has an important place in culture and history, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate representing it properly on Wikipedia...
-- Fru1tbat 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a section in the MOS that outlines formatting for non-fictional ship names (not easy to find, though); such consistency is also reiterated, for instance, upon glancing at other volumes/guides like the Random House Websters' College Dictionary. I would assume (with the above discussion and semantics aside) that this formatting should also hold true for fictional vessels. As such, to render in italics all instances of ship names in a Wp article is not unreasonable. We should strive for consistency: i.e., to not render ship names in italics is rather odd, and reasons above to do otherwise merely a matter of taste. Anyhow, there you go! Psychlopaedist 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

timeline etc

Hi. I have been doing some work on Timeline of Star Trek, by adding a section about the actual real-life history of Star Trek timelines, and and would welcome comments about my proposed rework of the timeline there to exclude inconsquential backstory mentioned in one episode. (see Talk:Timeline of Star Trek.)

Also please note that I have removed text Rules of Acquisition which was a list of all the rules. This was probably a copyvio of a book by the same name : some of the rules appear only in that book. I have reverted back to a list of random ones from episodes, which is probably about the extent we can do.

I've also had to do something similar at Star Trek planet classifications, which had a table of planet classes taken from Star Trek Starcharts.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that copying (a) an entire fictional book (albiet small) and (b) several entire pages of an original work of fiction into Wikipedia is not really on. I would ask for help identifying on-screen planet classes given, so they can be added one-by-one to Star Trek planet classifications. Morwen - Talk 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Klingon writing systems

I've copied text over to a separate Klingon writing systems page, as part of a proposal to break out the Writing systems section of Klingon language.

Reasoning:

  1. The alphabets discussed there are distinct from both "Klingon languages", which are typically (and officially) written in the Latin alphabet.
  2. These alphabets can also be used to transcribe English, as the illustrations show.
  3. Thus the language(s) and alphabet(s) are not tied together in the way that (for instance) the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are tied together.
  4. Readers can, and may wish to, learn about the language(s) without learning about the alphabet(s) — or vice versa. The page structure should permit this.

If this is acceptable, the remaining step will be to replace that section in Klingon language with a link to the new page. A similar link will also be placed in Klingonaase.

Translations and tags will also be needed.  – SAJordan talkcontribs 05:00, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

sources do not need to be quoted?

The page says for Canon material

"Sources do not need to be noted, because everything here is unquestionably legitimate."

This is absurd, it inherently contradicts Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction. If we are told that it is canon that Data's eyes turn blue when he goes underwater we need a source for this to be quoted in the article just as much as anything else. I propose to delete this. This is akin to a kind of implicit <ref>Somewhere in several hundred hours of Star Trek; I can't be bothered to say what now, or even tell you whether it was mentioned in dialogue or was on an illegible Okudagram, so that you have no way of telling how much weight to give it. muhahahah</ref> everywhere. I propose to remove that, and alter the section so it conforms with the core Wikipedia policies which if Wikipedia:Verifiability. Morwen - Talk 21:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange.. I dont undrestand you.. You want to be verifiable now? :-\? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have always wanted verifiability. Where have I said otherwise? II presume you are referring to my comments on Talk:Galaxy class starship, note what I said: "Material from whatever verifiable sources is welcome here. All material needs clearly marking as to its provenance, which will allow the reader to decide". Morwen - Talk 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Morwen that the phrasing, at least, is awkward, as is the initial text under non-canon. There is a tendency, although inconsistent, in the Trek-related articles to address only canon material and to excise references to non-canon material. I'm increasingly of the mind that verifiable information, whether from a canon episode or a non-canon book or game, should be mentioned in the relevant articles so long as it is also notably, i.e. not MatthewFenton's USS Pepsi (note italics).
Given a proper citation -- e.g., "According to source X or Y", and perhaps even articulating whether something is(n't) canon -- readers can make their own decisions as to how much weight to give this stuff. After all, the WikiProject text itself points out that there's debate among fans as how, if at all, to incorporate non-canon material into our notion of "What is Star Trek" -- why should we stifle that debate and not present information from which readers can make their own decisions? Too often editors assume that people looking at Trek material here are only interested in Paramount's notion of canon; but, again, the WikiProject write-up gives a heads up that some fans consider the literary material superior or preferable -- why exclude their own interests/contributions? I guess what it boils down to is, removing or excluding information because it isn't canon violates WP:NPOV, as we're making a value judgment in terms of what is "legitimate." Paramount has it's own take on what is "real" Trek, but fans don't always have to agree with Paramount -- take a look at the fan films, the popular book lines, etc. --EEMeltonIV 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did some work on this. I added
  • notes that sometimes extended discussion of non-canon material is appropriate
  • all information should be sourced
  • a warning about sourcing information from the Encyclopedia and pretending it is from the episode
  • noting that just citing an episode with no context at all is non-ideal
  • removing some excess verbiage about fans not liking Enterprise. deal with it.
  • noting that we will use spellings from scripts
  • noting how to handle where remastered version differs (we are expecting to get some new NCC numbers for example)
  • recommending citing semi-canon sources directly in text rather than footnotes, where possible
  • noting that lots of the novels are inconsistent with each other, even

Morwen - Talk 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

article rating drive

shall we have an article rating drive thingy like I have seen other projects do? Morwen - Talk 12:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does a stub tag not suffice :(? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, there are lots of low-quality long-winded Star Trek articles. Have a look at how the comics people do it, for example. Part of the Wikipedia 1.0 drive! Morwen - Talk 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Those ratings systems are pretty POVish imo, for example I started re-writing Weapons of Star Trek and then MeltonXI decided to join in with his "teaching skills" (introducing typos - hehe) - It's now my opinion that the article has gone from an acceptable level to a messy/yucky poorly structured article.. so where as I would rate it now a "Start" he may rate it a "B" Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's shorter, but it's better sourced and actually looks vaguely like an encyclopedia article now. Isn't that worth something? We are not aiming to be memory alpha and write entirely in-universe. I would agree with "Start" with it, though. Much more can and should be written: it's just was was there before was worse than nothing. For example this revision was dreadful. Morwen - Talk 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

CFD Notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters by Rank Insignia Question

I just added a box in the table in the characters by rank article for Riker as an admiral in "All Good Things"; however, I couldn't get a graphic of the correct insignia (I believe four gold discs inside a gold rectangle). If anyone could please put the correct graphic in, to replace the "Future Imperfect" admiral's rank graphic, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

import of Memory Alpha text

I should like to remind contributors that one cannot simply take text from Memory-Alpha and put it here. Memory-Alpha is under a substantially different licence, so unless you are the original contributor yourself, or get all the people who wrote that text to agree, it is a copyvio to take stuff from there and post it here, where it is supposed to be unde the GFDL. I've spotted this at four articles today

I'm worried we have a systematic problem here, and would appreciate help (a) untangling the Starfleet Engineering Corps one, and (b) help purging the Star Trek articles of copyvios from memory-alpha. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFDs

Thought I'd alert anyone who didn't know to the recent AFD debates

Also, there is rather a heated debate at

Morwen - Talk 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with Earth Spacedock

Can anyone offer any citations or supporting information or ANYTHING to this article? It looks too specific to be completely made up -- it was originally copy-and-pasted from the Daystrom site, but it seems to be largely de-copyvioed now. So, where does this info. come from? --EEMeltonIV 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just stuff made up by DITL. DITL are nice, they put stuff that they made up in white. This was all in white. I have removed the made up stuff now. Morwen - Talk 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD roundup

Members of the project may be interested to see

Morwen - Talk 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blish

Any idea where we would put an article about the James Blish series of Star Trek adaptions? They were just titled "Star Trek", "Star Trek 2", etc. There probably isn't enough material to warrant separate articles, but I could do one about them in general, based on the books themselves, the reprinted introductions I have, Fontana's notes, and Voyages of the Imagination, for starters. Morwen - Talk 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put this at Star Trek (Blish) for now. Morwen - Talk 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Redshirts

"Redshirt" is up for deletion.

It does seem to have severe sourcing problems. It would be good if we could get sources which do a literary analysis of the redshirt phenomenon, rather than just pop culture references. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of Star Trek related AfDs recently :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Away mission

Away mission is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away mission. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

and another

after DRV decision to overturn the previous "no consensus" ruling, the alternate ranks and insignia page is up at AFD again

Morwen - Talk 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

class and ship articles

Wanted to see if we can get a debate about ship and class articles. I think it is generally agreed that if we only see a ship design only once, there's no point having separate articles about the design and the ship. E.g. SS Botany Bay and DY-100 class. Equally, for guest ships that only appear in one episode and are of a generic type, not really much point having an article.

But I'm wondering to what extent it is sensible to have class articles when the only other ships of that type we know, other than the hero ship, are just random guest ships.

For example, does it make sense to have separate articles about the USS Defiant and the Defiant class starship (Star Trek)? I think not. The articles have such an overlap of coverage I think it would be sensible to merge them. This is even clearler in the case of USS Promethus (NX-59650) and the Prometheus class starship (Star Trek), which have seperate articles for some reason! (Lucky Wells class starship and USS Relativity are already merged). Also, yes, Equinox and Nova. Are these merged? They should be.

I ask for comments on this issue. I don't know exactly where I would draw the line. Intrepid/Voyager, Enterprise-E/Sovereign are more borderline, but as literary concepts they are hardly distinguishable. Also, we may wish to consider the split between Constitution-class/Enterprise/Enterprise-A.

As another point, what ships actually are worth having separate articles about, not just being covered in one episode? I would say either

  • non-trivial recurring role in multiple episodes
  • a major role in a film
  • being a major part of recurring backstory (eg "Stargazer"), even though it doesn't appear on screen
  • being a major setting in a book series

An extreme prune/merge effort would result in this situation. I think if we did this we could end up with much stronger articles

  • Enterprise (NCC-1701/NCC-1701-A)/random Constitution-class ships
    • Also a separate one for Constitution-class USS Defiant
  • Reliant/Random Miranda-class ships/Random Soyuz-class ships
  • USS Grissom/Random Oberth-class ships
    • USS Pegasus
  • Excelsior-class, and USS Excelsior
  • Enterprise-B
  • Enterprise-C/Random Ambassador-class ships
  • Enterprise-D/Random Galaxy-class ships
  • Enterprise-E/Random Sovereign-class ships
  • USS Defiant/Random Defiant-class ships
  • USS Stargazer/Random Constellation-class ships
  • USS Voyager/Random Intrepid-class ships
  • USS Prometheus/Random Promethus-class ships
  • USS da Vinci
  • USS Excalibur
  • Random Nebula-class vessels
  • New Orleans
  • Daedalus
  • Random DS9 kitbashes
  • Runabouts
  • Nova/Equinox
  • I have probably forgotten some but you get the idea
  • ...

So, thoughts? Morwen - Talk 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a reason to merge them in general. Remember we are not paper. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If two articles have 99% the same content, then it makes sense to merge them, as duplicate articles are bad.
If they cover 90% the same content, then it may well make sense, and merging may produce a more coherent and stronger article, regardless of space constraints. Saying "we aren't paper" isn't a positive reason to have dozens of tiny articles, it's just noting that if we decided,f or editorial reasons, that was appropriate, we could. Would you like to address anything substantive I raised? Do you think it is appropriate to separate articles about the Equinox and the Nova for example? Morwen - Talk 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way for these sort of articles is to start with a List of Starfleet ships or something with a description of each ship. If the entry for a ship started getting long, move this to its own article. I think this would be better than starting off with many small articles. The same concept would apply for races, characters, planets etc. Marky1981 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We've done that and got a really messy article at List_of_Starfleet_starships_ordered_by_class thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a really unfortunate article. Morwen - Talk 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be better listing alphabetically by ship name rather than class. Marky1981 01:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. The list there is very badly sourced, as it attributes to episodes lots of information which cannot be derived from those episodes and actually comes from the Encyclopedia. I have been working on-and-off about a restructed article about starfleet ship classes in my userspace User:Morwen/Starfleet ship classes. Morwen - Talk 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll do a specimen merge, in my userspace, of Equinox/Nova and the Prometheuses. You can then see that it will make for a much stronger, more coherent article. Morwen - Talk 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

EC: I was going to suggest we collaborate to produce an example of a merge, I do see your point you are making. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the approach is flawed. I think articles about the ships should focus on the spesific ship (such as missions it has participated and etc) and class articles should focus on the class (hardware and etc). Model it after real life ship/class articles.
I do not see whats unfortunate with List of Starfleet starships ordered by class
--Cat out 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ships that play a vital role in one or more episodes and which we also have a lot of information about should be featured in their own articles, even if some of the information is redundant to the article on the ship's class. There are a lot of Nova-class starships, but there's only one Equinox and none of those other Nova-class ships were ever seen in Voyager. And it's not as if the ship just shows up for a minute or two, it's a major plot element and we learn a whole backstory about them. In a sense, the Equinox was a major character in the episode. On the other hand, the USS Yeomato is a ship we know almost nothing about, except that it was the Enterprise's sister ship and it was destroyed by a computer malfunction. That's an example of a ship that doesn't need it's own article, it should be merged with the Galaxy-class article. Which ships are important enough to have their own articles and which aren't is very arbitrary, and I think that's why we might need to look at it on a case-by-case basis. However, one thing to consider is that it might be worthwhile to merge the articles when the ship in question is also the prototype of its class, like the Prometheus and the Defiant, because in that case the ship practically is synonymous with the class. Gotham23 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much my thinking : these aren't real ships, they are settings in fiction, and thus we should be dealing with things in an out-of-universe manner, based on their prominence within the literary works, rather than their supposed in-universe prominence. There's a notable tendency to avoid using the "hero ships" (Constitution, Galaxy, Defiant, Intrepid, Sovereign) as guest ships in episodes, which makes coverage interesting. For example, what can we say about the Intrepid class starship (Star Trek) that isn't really about the 'character' of the USS Voyager? Not a lot, really.
I've merged USS Prometheus with Prometheus class starship at the latter : they practically had 90% of the same content anyway, just stated differently, and we've never seen for certain a different Prometheus-class ship. Morwen - Talk 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cult of Spock

So, my next proposal for an article improvement drive is Spock. Spock is an immensely iconic character and his vast status in American popular culture needs rather more than a few mentions in the 'trivia' section, as does Leonard Nimoy's relationship to his character. If we can get an episode, a character, a starship, and a species up to GA or maybe even FA standards we can provide something to aim at. Come join in at Spock!

Morwen - Talk 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New page

As a reult of an AfD, I have moved a page that is under your scope to your project space. It is accessable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub proposal

Hi WP:ST... you might be interested in a proposal I have just made at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting. Basically, it amounts to a propsal for a split of the Star Trek stubs category into five parts, relating to TOS, DS9, TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise. These would all form subcategories (or at the very least subtypes) of the main Category:Star Trek stubs. Any stubs relating to items not covered by these five series directly (e.g., things about the animated series, or about the historic backdrop to the stories - such as Zefram Cochrane) would remain in the main Star Trek stub category. This would make it easier for specialists on any one of the series to find stubs relating to that series more easily. Please feel free to join the discussion at the link above. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode title RfC

Hi, folks. This is just a heads-up that there is a move request affecting Star Trek episodes here. The proposal is to remove disambiguation from article titles that don't need it (such as For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky or A Fistful of Datas), in keeping with the guidelines Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), as determined by the conversation mentioned above. (Note that if the moves are made, redirects will still exist at the names with the TLA suffixes, so no links will be broken.) All editors are welcome to participate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Monthly archive available

So, yes, I realised I still have a collection of the old Titan UK Star Trek Monthly from 1995-1998. This is a pretty decent resource for production notes and suchforth with what was going on at that time. Have issues #1-#2, #4-#36, #38-#44. And have put vague description of contents up at Star Trek Monthly. If anyone wants me to look for anything in particular, let me know.

Considering trying to get hold of the Fact Files : does anyone have a collection we can access?

Also, are the show bibles and Writer's Technical Manuals going to be considered citable sources? (as they are not properly published, although gettable hold of) Morwen - Talk 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I now seem to have bought a reasonably complete collection of the Fact Files. Which is quite scary. I'm going to have to get a bigger house! Morwen - Talk 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have the whole set! 19 binders-full, 256 issues, although they're not all filed away! Certainly takes up a lot of room! Marky1981 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nomenclature" guidelines

I've changed the section of the main project page on "Nomenclature", now that all the episode articles have been moved to fit with the guidelines at WP:TV-NC.

I've also removed the line about "moving articles to match naming conventions" from the To Do List.

If the convention of always disambiguating is mentioned anywhere else on this wikiproject, i'd appreciate it if someone could change it. --`/aksha 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikilinks" like Barzan

See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Inline_links_to_Wikia_sites?. Is that something this WikiProject supports? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't something I've ever included in any of the articles I've worked on. I've only ever used the MemoryAlpha links at the bottom of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about editor Starspotter

Today I spent some time cleaning up the Star Trek (film series) article, mainly due to contributions from Starspotter (talk · contribs) earlier this year. I checked their contributions history and found over a thousand edits in the past year, and doing some spot-checking, a large number of them appear to be detrimental to the articles in question, with much incomprehensible material due to errors in grammar and English usage, as well as a habit of introducing unsourced personal commentary and redundant text. They seem to be very enthusiastic, and I don't want to rain on their parade, but I think maybe some kind of assistance or intervention may be in order? Unfortunately I haven't really any time available, so maybe some of you could look into it? You can also see some comments I left on their talk page. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I can contribute much to this beyond to say that I observed the same issue with them some time ago. Got as far as my giving them a final warning, after which I didn't see them editing in my Watchlist again. They've received warnings from other editors as well. Hopefully they'll take this to heart before administrator intervention is needed. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like there have been over 200 edits since your final warning, many of which are clearly deleterious to the articles, so it seems they haven't taken it to heart so far... If anyone has time to check through their edit history and clean it up, that would be helpful. Not sure what to do for the future, I suppose it depends how they respond. It might be good if a couple more people from here could engage with them, so they realize it's actually a real problem. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to deal with it myself... --IamNotU (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect my form of "dealing with" it would be more iron-fisted than approaches other editors might take, given I did give them a final warning previously, so I'm happy to defer this one to others. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Star Trek

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting article! I was not aware it existed. Thanks for posting it here! Mocl125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Television series showrunners

For anyone up to the task, at the article List of Star Trek films and television series, the showrunners column in the television overview table requires sources for The Original Series through to Voyager. -- /Alex/21 04:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

I noticed that there are multiple drafts for the upcoming Section 31 TV series: Draft:Star Trek: Section 31 (TV series) and Draft:Section 31 (TV series). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Star Trek

Discussion at Template talk:Star Trek § Add roman numerals to first 6 movies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Colm Meaney

I've got to say, I was a bit shocked just how poor the article on Colm Meaney is. I'm going to try to work on it, but I'm not great with actors... Hobit (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Away team

The Away team (Star Trek term) redirect was deleted in May 2020, but there are 29 red links pointing to it. What would be a good target or recreating the redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the redlinks could just be removed, honestly. I get the reason for removing the automatic redirect to "landing party", but swapping "away team" with landing party in the text would make it more comprehensible. It's simply not an important target for any kind of coverage Wikipedia would provide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Source for showrunners

If anyone is interested, the series overview table at List of Star Trek television series requires sources for the showrunners from TOS to VOY. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It may not make sense to apply the specific showrunner distinction retroactively to an old show. It is only in recent decades that the term showrunner has come into usage, and unlike Executive producer it is is not a formal credit. A different choice of column heading might be an alternative solution, but that's probably a question for Project TV. -- 109.79.67.53 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_2&oldid=1137363786"