Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiWorld icon.JPG Star Trek: The Original Series was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Redshirt comic.jpg
WikiWorld icon.JPG Star Trek: The Original Series was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Facial Hair comic.jpg

article name redux[edit]

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

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

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

It might also be telling that at startrek.com, TOS is the only series page that does not contain the full subtitle of the series in italics (compare [1] with [2])...

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

  • Strong agree. The title of the show is STAR TREK. Period. Full stop. I have no problem with mentioning its nickname in the lede, but the title should reflect what was seen onscreen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Rhosis (talkcontribs) 02:31, 23 July 2013‎
  • Agree - TOS was coined only after the creation of TNG, The name of "the original series" is Star Trek. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong agree. I'm not entirely sure why a discussion is even necessary. DarrenBaker (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not really sure about this. True the name of the series was STAR TREK. However, it has become known as 'Star Trek: The Original Series' by most at this point. The Paramount website also refers to it as ST:TOS. The DVD and Blu-ray discs of the series are titled ST:TOS. It might be confusing to most not to differentiate it from other parts of the franchise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Although the series was called simply Star Trek at the time it was produced, it is now entirely referred to in an official capacity by the copyright holders as Star Trek: The Original Series. In fact, if anything, Star Trek now refers to the 2009 film. Miyagawa (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree: "The Original Series" is a retroactive name and is essentially fancruft (which Paramount has bowed to). "Star Trek (1966 series)" seems kind of clunky, but at least is better matches the Wiki naming conventions. Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Strong agree. Actually came into the talk page just to complain that the title should be the actual title of the show, not a common fan based disambiguation. Since just Star Trek alone would be ambiguous that leaves Star Trek (TV Series) or some such. I assume the 1966 is needed due to the cartoon TV series? Fine, just not what it currently is, that's not the name of the series.76.226.120.184 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Going further I think this article should be at Star Trek as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There can be hatnotes to get to the rest of the franchise. --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for intro[edit]

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


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

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

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


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


Requested move[edit]

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

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



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

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

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

Some changes[edit]

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

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

Moved from my talk page

Dear Sir/Madam:

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

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

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