Talk:Star Trek fan productions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Star Trek (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 – April 2006
  2. April 2006 – June 2007

Fry's Trek[edit]

Does this film have any notable resources? Links?

I posted a link for 'Star Trek: Aurora' with a review link from Cinescape (currently known as 'Mania.com') as well as the link for the serial and twice it was removed by a MikeWazowski.

Now, unless I can get a suitable arugument as to a film that only links to a Youtube embedded file, to another that actually has a review (and a website)...I move to have Fry's Trek removed.

Of course, the fact that the review for 'Star Trek: Aurora' is a member's review could also be up for debate, but I would like to hear some other points of view...

Too, this is not to debate the quality of either films; and hopefully not get into an editing war, but come to a suitable compromise...

--Joel Lindley 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Unity[edit]

Why has the entry for "Star Trek Unity" under "in production" been deleted? It IS in production. I know it says "currently filming", wich is currently not the case, since right now they are producing an audio-only season. And they are actually recording, not just pre-production. (see their forum). This should count as "in production" too, right? 81.201.238.210 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wasn't the person who took Unity off the list, but the "In Production" group it was in was for video productions and that side of the production group does seem to have stalled. If it goes back in it would be more appropriate to list it under Audio Dramas (AD). Taking the reversion a point at a time ..."revert self-promotion for non-notable *unproduced* series" It wouldn't be self-promotion if I put it back in and it is notable amongst fan productions and audio dramas in that it is planned as the build up to the video production which has a substantial body of pre-production work behind it. The problem is with the *unproduced* bit: Up to now we have not been listing AD's which are in production. Looked at objectively though, since we are listing video productions which are in production, isn't it discriminatory not to list ADs which are in production? --Kirok of L'Stok 09:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would actually advocate removing *all* the in-production entries, either audio or video, unless they can show that they meet Wikipedia's standards for notability/verifiability. Too often I've see some new group come in and plug their own production into this article, when they know it couldn't pass muster with an article devoted solely to them. I think this is definitely the case with Unity - this is not a place for them to advertise their production. TheRealFennShysa 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So you'd advocate taking out "Star Trek: Of Gods and Men"?--Kirok of L'Stok 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No, because Of Gods and Men clearly meets any notability/reliable sources concerns any editor might have. Most of the rest? Not so much. TheRealFennShysa 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. So the issue is not *really* whether a production is in production or not but its notability. Yes, actually I would agree. Consider the NYT article of last year, the majority of it was about a day on set with Starship Farragut, who were at that time unproduced, the reporter was far more interested in the people involved and what they were doing than the critical value of what they were producing. Yes, I think I see a thread here. The radio and TV interviews of Intrepid, also at the time in-production, were focussed on the phenomenon of fans making their own productions and if they touched on the films themselves, it was to point out the surprising quality of them.
It all boils down to that all important abstract quality of notability, NOT whether it is in production or not.
Here's a hypothetical question for you. Someone who searches for and finds this article will be interested in Star Trek fan productions, right? That's a no-brainer! Of course they are otherwise they wouldn't be here. Attracting accidental drop-ins and casual browsers isn't really the purpose of this article is it? The purpose is to convey pertinent, verifiable and notable information about Star Trek fan productions, right? So shouldn't the notability of the productions listed be measured against that? Shouldn't they be measured as regards to their notability as Star Trek fan productions? We keep getting told how the material here should be measured by its ranking on IMDB and its verifiable references in mainstream media. Since when has the mainstream media been an expert on the fan production community? IMDB only recognises a handful of fan films - their very elitism strikes them out as a source of information for ranking the notability of fan productions. Fan Film Quarterly, yes - The Guardian, no. The Star Wars Fan Film awards, yes - The Oscars? Get real.
I would submit that notability for a fan production should be just that - what makes this production special within the Star Trek fan production genre? Not searching for references in mainstream media. I agree that this article should not be a place for frivolous promotion of start-up concept groups. but I do not think it should preclude groups that have re-invented themselves in a new media to support their existing pre-production in machinima. Tenuous I suppose but that is what makes DisUnity interesting to me.
You're right in that most of the groups listed in this article would not last as independant wiki-articles. This is why a lot of them are here, they have been tried and deleted. However, surely it is the subject of the article that is judged for its notability in the overall field of human knowledge? I mean, If this article were AFD'd tomorrow (again), it would be the broad subject of Star Trek fan productions that would be judged, not the individual items of information that make it up. And once it has been accepted that the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it should attempt to cover the subject matter in as concise manner as possible whilst being inclusive of all information that is notable within the subject. Anything else would be scholarcruft--Kirok of L'Stok 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We have another case to consider with Star Trek: Frontier. Is it notable enough for inclusion? It exists - he's posted up to act 4 on YouTube. I haven't watched it so i don't know if this means it is complete or not but for the sake of discussion, let's assume it is completed. Does the fact that it exists make it notable enough for inclusion? It's got no website, I've never heard of it before today but on the plus side I like his voice actors and the animation isn't too bad - it's made using a video game called "The Movies" which is more than vaguely like the Sims. Get used to it, I think you'll see more of these coming our way, like "Star Trek: The Way back". Gawd knows I'm no great advocate for the idea of notability but the fact of the matter is that it cannot be enough that a production exists for it to be included here, there has to be something that makes it notable within the scope of the article - the field of fan productions.--Kirok of L'Stok 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a serious edit[edit]

For most of the entries, nothing seems to be said beyond "this exists" - that's great but why are those things listed on wikipedia? --Fredrick day 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple - if anyone lists any more than the barest details they are accused of self-promotion, that the material is non-notable or any one of a number of WikiScholar buzz words that merely shave the things that they can't define off so that the "round peg will fit in the (Wiki)square hole". Oh, I'm sorry, I see you know all these words already.
I have put the Lexington entry back in and added links to cover the major points. I'm sure you mean well for we all honest men if you'll forgive the Shakespearean pun, but could I ask an itsy bitsy favour? If you aren't prepared or able to edit and add citations to the individual entries that you see as problematical, could you post on the talk page before you take it out of the article? This would go a long way to showing goodwill on your part that you sincerely want to improve the article by giving the people who *do* have the resources to be able to truly fix the article the opportunity to do so. Shooting first then shouting "Stand or I'll fire!" doesn't help anyone.
I haven't had the chance to check all the seven "improvements" you have made. I sincerely hope they are more helpful than your first. If you really want to do something useful why not answer some of the comments and questions I have posed in the previous section instead of painting the whole article with a broad-brush as "This article does not cite any references or sources." This is insulting and patentely untrue - Explain yourself please!!--Kirok of L'Stok 10:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
sorry I'm bored of cruftopedians saying "honest guv! A source is just around the corner" - if you have sources add em, I am under no obligation to find them or even ask for them. It's unsourced, it's going - you can waste weeks waiting for cruftopedians to come up with sources. --Fredrick day 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
oh and this article does NOT cite reference or sources. --Fredrick day 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
What's your definition of a source? I find your insistence on this aspect insupportable--Kirok of L'Stok 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Fred - may I call you Fred? - you're not going to explain your actions? No matter. One should play the ball and not the player anyway. For thorough and comprehensive coverage of your "improvements" I shall give them individual sections below. If I have any general comments or queries on your action I shall put them in this section.
  • You list the first three "improvements" as "... removing - no sources, no suggestion of any notability - this is an encyclopedia - find sources if you want those things to appear here." What was the link to their website, chopped liver? Did you go to the website to see if it confirmed the facts shown in the entry? I'll wager that if you had, you would have found them, however if you want independant sources, independant sources you shall get. I have used links to TrekUnited since it is <tongueincheek> the best resource for fan films </tongueincheek>, however most of these details are also on Slice of SciFi and the other trek news media and forums. I take it that a link is sufficient source for you? You don't want me to start footnoting it like a *real* scholar would?
  • I am going to define Notability, or lack thereof, as notability within the context and scope of the subject of the article which is Star Trek fan productions - specifically Star Trek and specifically fan productions which I define as a dramatic production: video, audio, stage, animation ... We are not comparing Trek with Star Wars fan productions or those of any other genre, nor are we comparing them to professional productions - there are articles that cover all these, go there if you want to find out about them. Check back through the discussions for my case for this - a case that has not been contested, no doubt because of the righteousness of my cause and my ineffable logic ... or the lack of interest of other contributors <shrugs> one of the two.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your objection to the Fan film paramount rulings was "Then that's "a bloke" said and it's OR" - care to share with us what you mean by OR? (and please don't say the opposite of AND) I tire of Scholarcruft buzzwords, all they do is foster elitism.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In the face of a lack of cooperation on the part of the "good-cop/bad-cop" partnership of Fredrick day and EEMeltonIV it would seem to be up to those who create to fix the mess left behind by those who ..."improve". The use of "jingoism" is, in my experience, a ploy used by elitists to exclude and obfuscate. "OR" does not even seem to have any official Wikipedia meaning since it does not appear on the disambiguation page. If you two are some kind of official Wikipedia admin then this is a sad indictment on the probity of the organisation.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you are trying to say that it is Original research but that doesn't fit at all! The Paramount fan film rulings were a statement Jack Marshall - the only complete statement as far as I know - of what went down between Star Trek: New Voyages and the copyright owners, Paramount. It is a Primary source, Peer reviewed statement that has been used as the "rules of engagement" by all Star Trek fan productions ever since. The fact that it was published in a forum is immaterial - the effect of this statement was that it became the the defacto ruling between the two parties. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of this tract.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
*Your* stress over this post's significance is immaterial, and is a novel assertion which makes this OR. Cite a published secondary source that backs up your claim for this and all the other bits supporting your claims of notability. --EEMeltonIV 07:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
At last!! The Stone God speaks!! Now let's see if we can make some sense of it. "*Your* stress over this post's significance is immaterial, and is a novel assertion which makes this OR." My stressing the point makes it original research? I'll take a punt that you mean novel as in "new" or "interesting and unique". Vaguely flattering but no, I actually got the lead from a Fan Film producer when I asked him what the situation was as regards copyright and he pointed this out to me. Have you checked it out? Probably not. Do you care? Debatable. Its no more original research than the rest of the copyright section is - it didn't jump out of the computer, grab me by the hand and say "write me!!". I had to go looking for it. This is called research. It is what journalists do to check the facts that they write. Facts are ... oh, forget it. Could I ask your guidance on how to write anything without research? Because it would really make my job a hell of a lot easier! i should get you to come and work with us - to teach us all how to write articles without research! What a joke!
Let's try a thought experiment. You insist that I must cite a published secondary source to back up my claim. If no such published secondary source exists but I can provide primary source data to show that this situation does exist, what then? Because of a technicality Wikipedia will not report the fact? I thought the goal of an encyclopedia was to reflect reality NOT to create its own little brand of reality minus all the embarrassing questions and conundrums that life is party to. Life is Black and White for you? But wait! Black is the absense of light and you cannot prove that something exists that is not there! Yin and Yang? Sorry only one thing can be correct - choose one and the other (according to WikiBlinkers) cannot possibly exist! The voices! They won't go away!
As far as I can see this action is an assault by a faction that is showing a distinct lack of NPOV by using language favouring the studio and using WikiDoubletalk to discourage users from contributing. [OMG I'm starting to sound like Tony!] There is no attempt to help users to rehabilitate the article as guidelines ask. I see you have turned bad-cop today: does this mean Fred is going to be nice? <snorts> "I am under no obligation to find them [sources] or even ask for them." Obviously you two have a God given right to swan in and delete without any reason given other than the copy/paste "No sources, NN". Do you have a 'Bot to help you do that? Your fingers must get so tired.
If I am wrong then prove it by your actions and I will most happily apologise. --Kirok of L'Stok 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A need for consensus on sources is even more important now when we have User: EEMeltonIV saying that imdb is not a reliable source. Whilst I am not a lover of it as a source of information on fan films, it is, I believe a definitive source of information on professionally made films.--Kirok of L'Stok 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Lexington[edit]

I've added links to serve as sources for the base details already shown however our friend Fred wants it to sing and dance so lets see what makes Lexington special. Beyond the fact that they are indeed getting some serious production done in Birmingham, Alabama - costumes bought and a room being gutted to make a studio (there's dedication for you!) - There are two things that set it apart from other fan productions...

  • The fan film claims direct descent from a text-based fan fiction list that goes back to June 1985. Getting a source for this might take a bit of time though. I got this from an interview I did with the producer, Joey Bonice in Jan '06 but the fanzine it was printed in is not online any more (I don't have the webspace) although the Blog entry is here. The fan fiction website seems to have disappeared and the Wayback machine shows that the website <http://starshiplexington.homestead.com/> was archived from Jan '05 to May '06 when the website was suspended. A cursory check of the extant pages shows an index of 10 stories but they have only their fictional dates on them so we cannot use this to confirm how old the FanFic list is or was. Three of their stories appear in the TrekFiction archive dated between 1988 - 1992. I shall have to do some original research (oops that's another WikiSwearword!) to find out the history and status of this and get us some verifiable sources.
  • Lexington is the only production group I know to have survived, in fact prospered from, a change in base location. Joey started Lexington as a fan film in the Columbus, Ohio, area where it stayed until relocating to Birmingham at the end of '06. officially because the producer was moving, the group probably did better because there is not another group in the same area as there was in Ohio - the USS Hathaway. Unfortunately this will only be of interest to people who want to know more about Star Trek fan productions - does this spark your interest, Fred?--Kirok of L'Stok 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

does this spark your interest, Fred? - not in the slightest, it just seems a long way of saying "no decent sources exist" --Fredrick day 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

... Well obviously you have no interest in the subject then - what would be your definition of a "decent" source? Come on show and tell--Kirok of L'Stok 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've deleted this entry again giving the same reasons as before even though I gave three independant sources - I'm satisfied that it meets the requirements and until you can define your use of "sources" and "notability" any differently I'm tempted to call this vandalism. Either way I am reversing any attempt to further detract from this entry. I am dismayed that you have initiated a confrontationist situation without attempting to discuss it and I advise you to read the page on Edit war and show respect for Wikipedia's rules on Etiquette--Kirok of L'Stok 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources? I consider sources to be multiple reliable sources that are independent of the entity being described, this would not include fansite, talkboards and the like. It would count newspapers, magazines, academic journals etc. So why don't you list the sources that you have included that meet that standard for lexington - yes I read what you said above (about how sources should be relative to the article) and I don't agree - that just opens the floodgates for bit of tat to have a page. --Fredrick day 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What's a "bit of tat" when its at home? So you believe that sources should not be relative to the article? I fail to see how "Ladies Home Journal" will help - unless there are Sci fi, internet savvie ladies editing it now.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you give one source that is independent of the lexington production and it's a fansite. That is not a quality source. --Fredrick day 08:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually even that source is no good as it's just a forum post by people connected to the production - it's not independent. So in actuality, your three sources are ZERO sources. --Fredrick day 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Not only was their move to Birmingham reported on the forum but it was also on p.5 of Issue 19/20 of Hailing Frequencies Open and there was a front page news item on TrekUnited all written by the same handsome Trekkie. and before you ask, YES, there is editorial governance and NO I am not now, nor never have been part of Star Trek: Lexington or any other Star Trek fan group (although I do have two "walk-on" VA parts with ST: Eras and Dark Armada).
...and YES I do take offense to the term fancruft - I find it a lazy stereotype. If you're going to insult someone be imaginative. Now that is something to be admired. --Kirok of L'Stok 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources are those that have some sort of objective editorial oversight. You might consider looking at startrek.com, issues of the Star Trek magazine, or any of the various movie/sci-fi zines that cover fan material. --EEMeltonIV 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than Fan Film Quarterly and The LIEF Erikson, I can't think of any publication, fan or otherwise, that covers fan films. Startrek.com until recently had an editorial policy that forbade them on reporting on fan films since they are the official website of Viacom/Paramount (as they were then). All the others are commercial mags that i can't afford - however if any other users want to contribute anything from them, by all means do so. The standard of reporting on TrekUnited is up to par with any Citizen journalism, using AP style and showing due regard for the rules of journalism.
I would say that at the very worst it classifies as a Self-published source, which is covered by Policy shortcut: WP:SPS "...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually unacceptable as sources. [but] may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field." Modesty forbids me from classifying my work in this regard though ... although most of my Blog is a mirror of my older published work.
The operative point here though is: "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."
I think it would be safe to say that TrekUnited scores as a reliable source on this count wouldn't you say?--Kirok of L'Stok 09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No - I wouldn't - it's a forum post, that's as weak a source as you can get AND it's self-serving AND it's not relevant to notability. --Fredrick day 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I still do not see any decent sources for this and will remove it shortly. --Fredrick day 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What? You're saying that "Hailing Frequencies Open" is a forum post? That the front page article is a forum post? You're toying with me aren't you by just pretending to be stupid, how incredibly witty of you! Bravo Fred! ... and you still haven't shared with us what a "bit of tat" is. Please, I want to broaden my vocabulary.--Kirok of L'Stok 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my Stars and Garters I do apologise! You've deleted the entry so that means you were serious after all and not joking. How embarrassing. I would never dream of calling you stupid!
I think I recognise the problem. You see I am used to discussing things with people before taking action because (a) I don't want to waste my time and yours by posting something that you will be forced to delete (I know how traumatic that must be for you) and (b) by sorting out the problems you have on one item we can apply that to all the others and won't have to go through this with every other entry. its only logical captain.
Whereas you Fredrick are obviously a man of few words and a desire for action. This is why you shoot first and let God sort out the sinners delete first and let the workers work out the problems. This was why you were focussed on the entry and not the fix that I was asking you about - using the material from HFO and the Front page news article - you know the ones that any uh, person would recognise as not being forum posts? look up the discussion page a bit ... above the bit where you called a website a forum post ... and just above the bit where EEMeltonIV suggested we use Startrek.com as a resource (you two are such jokers!) ... and you'll see it.
Personally I like my method - it means we (the people actually doing the work around here) don't have to jump through the hoops as much. Surely no sane person would enjoy doing that to another human being? To prefer watching the pitiful Cruftopedians Users scurrying about trying to fix the gaping holes in the fabric of the articles that have been torn open? Right Fred? Uh, Fred? --Kirok of L'Stok 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Dark Armada[edit]

I think the amended entry should please the discerning pallette: it gives sources and establishes mainstream media notability. Did I do good "Guv"?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did someone cock a make up and delete this without it showing on the history? I think you can do that if you edit a revision. <shrugs> back to the old drawing board. What doesn't kill me makes me stronger.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bring Back Kirk fan trailer[edit]

These are my notes for the rehabilitation of the Bring Back Kirk entry. Most material from http://www.bringbackkirk.com/oldnews.html

  • STARR REPORT - Michael Starr; New York Post; Jul 1, 2004; pg. 085; - A check of their archives shows that the article exists and can be downloaded by subscribers.
  • May 04 - Featured in Star Trek Monthly Magazine, Scottish Daily Record and the Daily Express
  • 22/03/04 - second trailer online Trek Today corroborated by http://www.trektoday.com/news/220304_02.shtml
  • 8/17/03 - BBK Trailer shown at Starfleet Ball Reunion Con
  • 3/2/03 - 2003 Brazilian Trek Con at Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • Released 2001 - "The original Bring Back Kirk teaser trailer was created back in 2000 as a promotional presentation/entertainment piece to be distributed at conventions, around the world, and on the Internet. The two-minute, fourteen-second presentation was created to present the positive and true goals of the Bring Back Kirk effort."--Kirok of L'Stok 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable productions[edit]

If the article starts with a list of notable productions? what are the rest? --Fredrick day 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Play nice and be tidy[edit]

I'm off to work - don't take my silence as agreement with this action --Kirok of L'Stok 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tales of the seventh fleet[edit]

Anyone got any sources for this? --Fredrick day 11:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation noted that it's own article was AFD'd out of existence for being NN. --Fredrick day 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
BBC online ran an article on Hidden Frontier as part of their 40 Years of Star Trek coverage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5305450.stm). As part of that coverage, they hosted footage of several fanfilms, including Tales of the Seventh Fleet. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_5290000/newsid_5299000?redirect=5299014.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1) I believe they've also had print coverage, but I'd need to check with them for the actual article. They were also mentioned in the CNN article listed in the Intrepid entry. Nick Cook 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have, Fred, and just as a special favour to you i'll find them before i put everything back together again. How astute of you to notice the AFD, a hold over from the great Wikiwar of '06 when WCityMike came through and deleted everything like ...um ... well, I'm sure you guys are kind to animals.--Kirok of L'Stok 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No assertions for notability[edit]

The following blurbs I have cut-and-pasted from the article pending an assertion of notability. A simple description of what they're about doesn't suffice -- why should the real world care about what they've done? :Why else would they be reading this article? We have a responsibility to give concise pertinent coverage--Kirok of L'Stok 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I've left, for now, the blurbs that assert their real-world significance -- through the involvement of real Star Trek writers/actors or recognition in mainstream press -- even though most lack specific citations. If in a few weeks those {{Fact}} tags aren't replaced by something more substantial -- e.g. objective, third-party coverage by a reliable source -- I'll move them here, again pending addition of citations. --EEMeltonIV 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

;Starship Exeter : An online series produced by Jimm and Joshua Johnson that focuses on the adventures of the starship Exeter in the original series time, with production design matching the era.

the Exeter article has a wikipedia article - so that should go back in (or maybe the exeter article needs someone to take a harder look at it...) --Fredrick day 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The latter -- I'll be putting some maintenance tags on that article in a bit. --EEMeltonIV 08:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. They're at least mentioned in this NYT bit. I'll throw this one back in. At some point, though, we should all take a close(r) look at this NYT piece and ask whether it's establishing notability for specific productions (i.e. is being mentioned in a sentence sufficient to est. notability?) or just the notion of Star Trek fan productions? --EEMeltonIV 08:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of those star trek articles like that. quite a few of the LIST ones need to go I think. --Fredrick day 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm sure we all apreciate your largesse on this You know to someone who knows the content that you are playing patsy with this all quite funny in a ridiculous sort of way ... Oh! There is a LIST that you are working your way through? Are we common Users allowed to see it? Or is this a "secret agenda" <Fx Theatre organ> Dum Dum Dummmmmmmmm</Fx>--Kirok of L'Stok 09:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No I mean some of the "List of..." articles. --Fredrick day 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a link please I still have no idea what you mean and it is important for the fostering of good faith that I can be sure you are not perhaps talking about some forum hidden in the bowels of Wikipedia that handles attacks such as these as the AFD forums do.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about articles like List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: The Original Series writers, List of Star Trek characters, List of Star Trek films, List of Star Trek races, List of Star Trek ships, List of Starfleet ship classes, List of Starfleet starships ordered by class, List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek, List of lost ships of Starfleet, etc. etc. "List of..." articles. --EEMeltonIV 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

;Stone Trek

I've moved this one back into the article - if it can sustain its own Wikipedia page, it should be in the article - the assertations of notability are in that article, and don't need to be repeated here.MikeWazowski 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this so? If so then that means that we might need to reassess all the "improvements" on the entries that have their own articles. In fact ... whay am I asking you? Can someone give us the URL of a forum on Wikipedia that we can query things like this on?--Kirok of L'Stok 22:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah it's here. The first thing I do when I remove something from a page like this is check for a wikipedia article - nothing I removed has one. Indeed, I pointed out above, one that should be re-added because it had an article. I've had a quick look and nothing else currently removed by others had an article. so we are good to go on that one. --Fredrick day 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
MikeWazowski's point was not just that it should be returned to the article but that it need not show notability of sources here. You have peppered the Hidden frontier, New Voyages and Exeter entries with citation needed stickers - if what he says is true then these are not recquired--Kirok of L'Stok 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No he's saying if it has a wikipedia article that it is linked to - that notability presented there will cover here. However that still doesn't mean that statements about a notable item do not require sources. Unsourced information can be removed at any time. Even when something is notable, the statements made about it still require sources. --Fredrick day 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"the assertations of notability are in that article, and don't need to be repeated here.MikeWazowski" I'm sorry, I think there is enough of a question on this in my mind give me a source for what you are saying.--Kirok of L'Stok 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. This is core wikipedia policy, I'm a bit surprised to have to explained this to someone who has been editing for almost two years - this is really basic stuff. --Fredrick day 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt it is but i have never made any pretentions to WikiScholarship nor styled myself "an editor". As a general rule I add entries rather than edit other peoples work - there's no shortage of people around here who will do that - I have quite enough editorial responsibilities already thankyouverymuch without buying into this can of worms.
To summarise the situation then, even though an entry is meant to be a "10-second-grab" of the larger article, it still has to duplicate the reason why it is notable in this article and give duplicate sources because, let's face it, EVERY source is likely to be challenged at this rate. In that case why bother having the other articles when you will have to have ALL the notability material and sources here? Man! That is going to blow the size of this article through the roof!
Whilst we are on the subject of sources, what's the go with using footnotes now? Are we supposed to be using footnotes instead of links or are there special cases? Once again if we have to footnote every source instead of using a link that is going to increase the size of the article immensely, especially if we are expected to source every statement.--Kirok of L'Stok 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You are still confusing two things - let me see if I can make this simpler with an example. Brad Pitt is notable - that can be demonstrated because he is the subject of multiple independent sources. The statement "brad pitt is for gun control" has nothing to do with notability but it requires a sources for verification purposes or it should be removed. Footnotes? this article doesn't have any footnotes. do you mean references? Are we supposed to be using footnotes instead of links or are there special cases? - no special case, just the bog standard wikipedia way of doing things. --Fredrick day 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
So, if the fact that Brad Pitt is in favour of gun control is mentioned in his main article and in the article on gun control the source needs to be cited both times. Gotcha effendi. Always remember, Fred, there is no such thing as a stupid question only stupid people who don't ask questions. No footnotes? Perhaps it is my old-fashioned traditionalism but if something is cited by a superscript number or letter which refers to a NOTE at the FOOT of the article or page - tell me if I'm going too fast for you - it is by definition a FOOTNOTE. Do you use MSWord? What do they call the practise there? Hmmm? Now, if Wikipedia wants to call it a reference <shrugs> that's cool but "to reference" is a generalisation that includes the practise of footnotes, endnotes, or any one of a number of different formats for giving more information. Footnotes are to references as drakes are to ducks - just as not all ducks are drakes not all references are footnotes.
I'll give you an example of what I am talking about. In the "Bring Back Kirk" fan trailer entry there are...
  • LINKS to the title (the website), Star Trek: Generations (the movie) and the teaser trailer
  • REFERENCES (aka Footnotes) to the Star Trek Monthly and The New York Post's Starr Report
  • CITATIONS NEEDED to the mentions of the 2003 Starfleet Ball and Brazilian Trek Con at Sao Paulo.
My questions are ...
  • In this article before you turned up to reeducate us we have always used LINKS to cite sources, is this acceptable?
  • Do the citations you have demanded have to be added as what you term as REFERENCES or can we continue to use links?
  • If there's no special reason for using this referencing format, why do it at all?
My point about the size of the article still stands - when we get all those entries sourced up and put back in, if we have to give the sources as <ahem> REFERENCES then the references section will become humongous! As it stands now the references section is about one sixth the size of the article and that does not include the citations required which would bring it up to at least one fifth. My inclination is to source things as a LINK but I don't want to spend the rest of my life entering and re-entering stuff because it fails to meet some nebulous standard.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You'll find answers to these questions at Wikipedia:CITE. The short version is, the links-as-reference that used to make up this article were a half-measure -- while such links can be used, they need to be supplemented with an entry in a References section at the bottom of the article. Using a footnote format allows to easily refer back to the same source (like that NYTimes article), and the citation template allows for consistent formatting in the {{Reflist}} section. --EEMeltonIV 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm an academic by trade and we seperate out the two - a footnote will generally be supported with a reference but a reference is never a footnote. What wikipedia is calling footnotes are actually references and what you are describing are actually endnotes (although because this doesn't have pages, then proper footnotes would never actually appear - they would always be endnotes) - but I quibble... --Fredrick day 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
True this *is* quibbling and amusing as it is, it is taking time away from giving the Users and contributors of this article a clear idea of what is expected of them. I'm cutting the operative parts out of this section into one of its own, see below, where we can specifically discuss the reference section. One parting shot though, I notice that even Wikipedia calls this a page so they are "footnotes" and not "endnotes"
Mystery Science Theater 3000 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Ryan K. Johnson's take on a film the original Mystery Science Theater 3000 never tackled. Ryan, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot mercilessly lampoon the fifth Trek feature film and William Shatner's direction.

;Star Trek: Dark Armada : The first episode of Dark Armada takes place ten years after the events in Star Trek: Nemesis on board the U.S.S. Batavia, named after the famous 17th C. Dutch ship, when Cpt Richardson and his crew make a shocking discovery which will determine the fate of life on Earth and throughout the Federation. It was started in Mar, 2005 by an energetic group of young film-makers gathered from Star Trek fan clubs in the Netherlands & Belgium. Filming began in Jan 2006, a test/pilot episode was released that September and filming of their first episode, "Nightfall" is due to start in July 2007. They have had major coverage in the Dutch media including national newspapers, TV and radio. Their website even sports a video endorsement from Dwight Schultz, Lt. Reginald Barclay of The Next Generation and Voyager.

So THAT'S where it went to! Explain to me how this ...
"They have had major coverage in the Dutch media including national newspapers, TV and radio. Their website even sports a video endorsement from Dwight Schultz, Lt. Reginald Barclay of The Next Generation and Voyager."
... does not show notability. Enquiring minds and all that.--Kirok of L'Stok 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- to be honest, I just saw that their link was on the same domain as the project and figured it was more self-referential stuff. I will return it in a bit, or you can. --EEMeltonIV 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute - those sources are in dutch and therefore I cannot assess what they are and how reliable/notable they are. I'll try and find a dutch speaking author to take a look. --Fredrick day 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Come now, Fred you are too modest - You have given us many instances of how you know Dutch so well you can do it twice!--Kirok of L'Stok 09:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to keep making personal attacks on me if it makes you feel better, it's not a game I play. --Fredrick day 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference Section[edit]

I'm starting this as a seperate section to organise things a bit better so that we can get the requirement for and use of a reference section cleared up. Here are what appear to be a few key statements ...

  • You'll find answers to [questions about references] at Wikipedia:CITE. The short version is, the links-as-reference that used to make up this article were a half-measure -- while such links can be used, they need to be supplemented with an entry in a References section at the bottom of the article. Using a footnote format allows to easily refer back to the same source (like that NYTimes article), and the citation template allows for consistent formatting in the {{Reflist}} section. --EEMeltonIV 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my spelling all this out but this is all something that I am unfamiliar with and what you are talking about is a major change in the way that this article is organised and has never been broached before now. My High School education is a dusty 40 year old memory and we were not taught Harvard referencing then so if this all seems very basic to you then just bear in mind that Wikipedia is not just meant for academics to contribute to. However after saying that, if one wants to contribute to something then the onus is on us, the Users, to try to follow the guidelines set.

In summary...

  • Entries need to be Notable
  • Notability needs to be supported by Sources
  • Sources are expected to be formatted as References

Its that last step which is new to me - the WikiJargon is that they are "inline citations" which provide source information for specific statements and can be one of three formates ...

  • Harvard referencing
  • Footnotes <GASP!>
  • Embedded Links

Now what we have been doing to date has been Embedded links BUT the standard says... "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article." So what the WikiCommandos have done (besides nuking every entry that they can't understand see the notability for) has been to create the Reference section.

You see? I told you all the time that they were our friends! I just wish the hell they would have summarised it like that right at the start instead of making everybody jump through the hoops like they did.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lessons learned[edit]

I don't know what your mandate is for what I still see as a needlessly aggressive attack on the status quo of this article but I would suggest that the next time you do this, carry a few lessons learned with you that could save everybody a lot of emotional waste.

  • Don't call the Users of the article cruftopedians, it is a stereotype that makes you sound like a bigotted snob, which we all know is far from the real, new-age, sensative Fredrick.
  • Open a section on the Discussion page and explain what you are doing BEFORE YOU START.
    • WHY: Explain why the changes are necesary, Summarise the shortcomings of the article in moderate, non-aggressive language
    • HOW: Explain what you are going to be doing and give links to the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines and standards
    • Link to an article that is an example of what you see as a high standard that can be aimed at and used as a reference.
  • Repairing the article by your own efforts is a short-term fix, educating the Users of the article is a long-term solution that is self-perpetuating
  • Remember that unless *you* are going to accept responsibility for the creation and development of the article from that point forward then what you need is a WikiEducated group of Users who will do it for you when you move on. Treat the Users as pupils and (assuming you can gain their respect) you will be treated as a teacher. Treat them like animals to be herded, or at best trained, and you will be treated as the lion-tamer - to be pulled down and mauled at the first opportunity.
  • In general do not place yourself into a confrontationist situation. If your aim

is to truly improve the article then you should strive to create a partnership with the Users. You can only expect to be treated as the enemy if you purposefully place yourself in opposition to them.

  • Remember that the Users of an article obviously do not have the same knowledge of Wikipedia that you have (otherwise the article would have no problems, right?), they might have different educational, cultural or ethnic backgrounds to you, so couch your posts in plain English
    • Avoid jargon, but if you must, link it to the WikiGuideline that explains it.
    • If someone asks you a question have the common decency to answer it in a timely fashion
    • Remember this is supposed to be communication - if Users don't understand you then you have failed
  • Avoid making your replies sound like a personal value judgement - "I don't see any quality to that source" is open to debate whereas "That source is not acceptable because ..." gives the debate an objective focus and will help the Users make a better choice next time.
  • Remember that life is full of options.
    • If a User wants to do something then give them a range of options that will help them achieve their goals.
    • If it can't be done on Wikipedia then explain why and what needs to be done before it can happen here
    • Show yourself willing to help them achieve their aims and you will be a hero instead of a villian
  • Don't be afraid to admit that some WikiGuidelines are flexible. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools (Douglas Bahder, "Reach For The Sky") Rules are there for a reason and if a solution achieves the same effect as the guideline then it should be acknowledged as equivalent in this instance.
  • Ask for feedback on how to improve your work. Only God (however you perceive Him) is perfect.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It did make me chuckle this morning over coffee, how you talk about my aggressive manner and in the same breath continue your personal belittling attacks on me. So you talk about how people should work together and then start attacking another editor! nice. --Fredrick day 10:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Fredrick I make no pretensions to sainthood, however I think I have proven that I am willing to learn and change - I challenge you to do the same yourself! I shall simply say that I call 'em as I see 'em. Anything I have said has been in response to a specific action on your part (except the Double Dutch one which was just plain silliness) and has been mild banter compared to the depth of emotion that has been held back. I don't doubt that you truly believe that what you are doing is in the best interest of Wikipedia however the manner in which you have done it has been, well, let's just say you could have handled it better.
I am not an academic, I come from an engineering/safety background and a retrospective at the end of a project is imperative to making sure that mistakes are not perpetuated and experiences are applied to the next project as improvements. If you get a kick out of this type of emotional crap then continue the way you have been but if you do don't try to pretend you are doing it for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you are going to continue flitting from article to article "improving" them then it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that you do so in as efficient and non-aggressive manner as possible. My advice is meant in good faith to help, not just you personally, but the next poor bastard who gets you. (I'm Australian, It's part of my cultural heritage to use artistic epithets.) --Kirok of L'Stok 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If you get a kick out of this type of emotional crap then continue the way you have been but don't try to pretend you are doing it for the benefit of Wikipedia.
Yet more attacks on me as a person and now claiming that I'm actively working against wikipedia. Please stop those personal attacks or I will have to ask for you to be blocked. --Fredrick day 22:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> My prose is lost on you - I'll edit it to make it more clear. Fred, why do you continue to redirect the focus of this discussion page to you personally? I think my contributions show that I have focussed far more on the business at hand than on personal tit-for-tat, can you say the same about yours? WCityMike did exactly the same thing, tying up debate with beurocracy to obfuscate. You are not the focus of this article nor this discussion page. It is so sad that you can only comment on what you see as the affronts to your dignity instead of the content of the posts, the business for which we are supposed to be here.
Please comment on the pertinent content and give us all a shining example of what a good Wikipedian should do by playing the ball and not the player. You can take heart that you will be proving yourself to be so much better than I. This idle banter is stopping the Users of this article from getting the information they need, since questions are not being answered that are needed to formulate suitable entries:
  • I want a specific ruling on whether these sources are going to be recognised by Wikipedia...
    • "Hailing Frequencies Open" the newsletter of TrekUnited; 20 issues since June 2005; editorial governance; pdf; Free public download
    • Front page news items from the TrekUnited Website; editorial governance
    • SliceOfSciFi Podcast and website
    • Fan Film Quarterly
Let's do this a couple at a time, Fan Film Quarterly is self-published (lulu right?) and although could be used in a article about itself WP:SPS would suggest it should not be used here (as this is not an article about FFQ). Same would seem to go for Hailing frequencies open. --Fredrick day 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
LULU.Com is print on demand just like the Universities do, Fan Film Quarterly is about Fan Films of which the fan film section of this article is a subset of. Its cited under further reading on the Wikipedia Fan Films article, Evidently it is going on an extended hiatus because the editor is being posted to Iraq according to Fan Cinema Today which says of it "by mixing short articles with a graphic-heavy design, FFQ became a resource to the fan film community."--Kirok of L'Stok 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It was cited on the fan film article - I've removed it (along with a blog) as Non-notable - that's an article in need of clean-up as well. --Fredrick day 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I expected nothing less of you, Fred. Does the fact that the author was interviewed in The Comic Book Bin (no, its not a fan site) or that his ranking of a film was cited by The London Paperchange things? These are just two that I can get direct sources on, there are a couple more, one of which is a foreign language magazine I can't get a direct link to.--Kirok of L'Stok 13:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
first one seems a nn site, the second is an incidental mention. Anyway from your own link By Noble’s own admission, the zine has struggled to build an audience since its inception. NN self-published mag read by pretty much nobody. --Fredrick day 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You can of course give me a source for your statement that The Comic Bin is non-notable? The second is the writer using the Fan Film Quarterly statement as a reference for the film, why would he do that if he regarded the source as not notable? PLUS you are quoting out of context, the full quotation is ..."By Noble’s own admission, the zine has struggled to build an audience since its inception, likely due to the unusual way it must be purchased, and its high price, due to custom publishing arrangments with Lulu.Com, which prints the magazine." It is not due to any deficiency in the content. Quoting out of context is not good form, Fred, I'm surprised at you. --Kirok of L'Stok 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
But who cares what the reason is? it's irrelevent to notability - the bottom line is that it's a self-published, vanity magazine read by next to nobody - it's not a suitable source. --Fredrick day 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is a value judgement on your part that I cannot accept unless you back it up with sources. AND you still haven't given me a source for your statement that The Comic Bin is non-notable, NOR sufficiently explained why you believe The London Paper mention is incidental - it is a supporting reference. And there you go with the stereotypes again! Why do you classify print-on-demand as vanity publishing? I'm sure the many universities, including the Australian National University, that use it will be quite dismayed at being described as vanity publishers. Please cover all the points not just the selective few.--Kirok of L'Stok 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. I'm now bored of explaining the most basic bits of policy to you. In future, I'll wait for you to explain why things should be included rather than having to keep doing your homework for you.--Fredrick day 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So your sole reason for not allowing Fan Film Quarterly is because it is print-on-demand. Using that reasoning, I can now check the catalogues of every university that uses print-on-demand, check Wikipedia for their usage and if i find any I can remove them with the tag "Fred told me they are Vanity publishing and are not allowed". No, of course I would not do such a rotten trick on anyone, I am merely pointing out the absurdity of what i see in your argument. You have been unable to prove the source unworthy in its own right so you are falling back on a stereotype. It is a shame that you are bored with this because i was hoping you would find it an interesting case study of how not all round pegs fit in square holes. Now i've gone and given you justification (at least to your own satisfaction) for not cooperating, for sitting back and watching everyone else work trying to guess if their repairs will satisfy your discerning judgement. You are going to wait until I explain to *you* "why things should be included rather than having to keep doing your homework for you." I think I have made my case quite clear enough regarding Fan Film Quarterly. And you have made it quite clear that if i use it you will delete it.
I would be interested to know how you think you have been the one who has done all the "homework". I had to go to immense effort to get you to focus on discussion of the article, I phrased the questions, I found the links, the corroborating sources - all you were asked to do was to think. To show cause why three sources could not be used. You didn't even get through the first one. Its hard being creative isn't it? Its soooo much easier deleting things, telling people they can't do things. Pruning someone else's roses is the kindest way of putting it I suppose. So much harder to plant your own and nurture them. All you are being asked to do is explain why THIS particular rose has to pruned and your answer is because it is a briar rose and not a standard rose! No one is arguing that pruning might be necesary in some cases but I'll be stuffed if I'm planting anything unless i can be reasonably confident that you or one of your ilk will not take the chainsaw to it! I need specific case information rather than being just pointed to the FAQ's and rules. If that's too hard for you then give me the URL of the next highest stage in wikipedia - direct me to someone who CAN give a coherent ruling rather than an unsupported value judgement based on an interpretation of the rules that you have trouble substantiating.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take it up with WP:ANI - I've nothing left to say to you. --Fredrick day 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
--Kirok of L'Stok 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to chip in here, I understand where Fredrick is coming from. Having trained as both a biologist and a nurse, I'm intimately familiar with the need for proper, peer-reviewed referencing. Wikipedia, by its very nature, has to adhere to a standard of referencing or it cannot possibly be taken seriously as an accurate, reliable information source. While it may seem nitpicky to you, Kirok, I don't think that's the case. The bottom line is, articles have to be approached in a professional manner, and referenced accordingly. If I wanted to get an article published in, for example, The Nursing Standard, and posted references that weren't properly sourced I'd be laughed out of the room. While many of the sources you've posted are accurate and well-written (and I can attest to that-you've done your homework on the subject), they aren't verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Internet-only publications, or non-partisan sources such as Trek United may be notable to us, but they're not by Wikipedia standards. Remember, we're a small proportion of the community here, and as such this subject is likely not of any import to the majority of people here. They're not going to simply take our word that something we're posting is notable. Which is exactly why everything needs proper referencing. My feeling here is that Fredrick isn't being difficult, and he's not trying to give anyone here a hard time. He's simply trying to get a point across, and is becoming frustrated that it isn't sinking in. Conversely, you're also getting frustrated because you can't see his point of view, and you feel he's just coming in and ripping the article apart just for the sake of it. Which isn't the case. Nick Cook 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I'm not doing this purposefully to irritate - I have specific points that are being avoided or fobbed off with vague "template" answers. My point about Fan Film Quarterly is that I believe it fulfils at least some of the qualifications for being considered by the Wikipedia rules. Here's a test question: Could you publish an article and reference phd work published by the University of, um, I dunno, Edinburgh? Peer reviewed work? Would it make any difference that it was published as print-on-demand? I know of textbooks that are print-on-demand. Fred is using print-on-demand as a catch-all for not having to consider a work on the corroborating sources that identify it as a worthy source. If they can give me a clearer idea I'll accept it but "self-published vanity-magazine"? He either can't or won't substantiate his contention.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Alan, he's not being obtuse, and he's not dodging your questions as far as I can see. He has answered you, you just don't agree with the answer. To answer your question to me, I could publish an article and reference work carried out by other researchers, but that work would have to be verifiable to be acceptable. Look, I read Fan Films Quarterly, and it's a great publication, but whether we like it or not, Fredrick's right; it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and making personal attacks on Frederick isn't going to help the situation. Nick Cook 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ - I have questions that have not been answered - Objectively, quantifiable questions. He's not dodging? Do you really want me to start at the top of the page and re-list every question I have asked that has not been answered? Every time a curly one comes up, he crawls behind the WikiWall - I'm being victimised! I defy anyone to point to one thing that I have said that was an unprovoked attack, that was created to hurt - if you can I have enough backbone to apologise for it and enough moral fibre to sincerely try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Until he apologises for the cruftopedian remark i will continue to use it as an example of the lack of NPOV that he brought to this article. I'll not blow this out of proportion by saying the man's an out-and-out scoundrel, although Lord knows we've had our share of those hiding behind the WikiWall, but I certainly don't think he should be editing this article after showing such blatant, unrepentant prejudice.
No Nick, those were not personal attacks - that was idle banter to show the absurdity of the situation - it was, my friend, a mere bagatelle! I reserve my real anger for the things in life that deserve it - rape, murder, writing bad fan fiction... - what's got me shirty about the recent events has been the manner in which the deed was done. Fred neatly side-stepped the points i made that could avoid all this unpleasantness by focussing the discussion's attention on his perceived slights - the WikiWall again - Not one word that any of it had seeped in. Well, I've done my bit by giving them feedback, they can do with it what they will. Luckily any organisation or person who ignores feedback won't be a problem for long.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Kirok you're perceiving victimisation where none exists. As a neutral party, I stand by my initial comment, but if you're that convinced of your point here, I suggest you take it up with WP:ANI as suggested. Nick Cook 21:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Intrepid[edit]

I've restored and updated the Intrepid article, and I think I've referenced it properly for notability. I'd appreciate some feedback and confirmation on it though. :) Nick Cook 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good - I see no problem with it being re-added with those sources. --Fredrick day 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the input. Nick Cook 17:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Farragut & Tales of the Seventh Fleet[edit]

I've restored both entries, and have begun referencing them. Farragut almost certainly belongs here since one of the articles already being sited focuses largely on Farragut. Tales has had more coverage than is listed, but I need to track it down. Nick Cook 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that tales of the seventh fleet - besides being mentioned in a BBC article also is located here on the BBC site. --Fredrick day 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

offsite discussion[edit]

The weird edits and ridiculous requests for citations of common sense and common knowledge statements on this page are being discussed here: [1]

Fredrick Day's credibility as an editor of this material is discussed fully, without Fredrick Day's being able to delete comments he doesn't like, on this Forum: What's with the wikipedia entry ?

yes because I've been so busy do that here - why I've deleted all of zero comments! how evil of me. By the way, I push an old lady into the road, the other day, you might want to single me out for that as well. --Fredrick day 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

fan made audio dramas[edit]

Hi all, i have a simple question. Why was the entiere section about the fan audio plays removed from this article? The article is named "fan productions" and not "fan films". I have been reading this discussion page and the discussion about notability. The "Star Trek: The Section31 Files" would then be notable for the use of a"shared universe" First of all the season 1 premiere "altered reflection" is a crossover with "Star Trek: Hidden Frontier" and also with the defiant audio plays which were included in the in this article. Its content centers around the temporal cold war and gives us an explanation why it happened (which was not revealed in Enterprise). And lastly there is a crossover with the Doctor Who universe, claiming (in the fictional world) that the race known as novachron, which was envolved in the events that started the cold war, were the time lords. It goes further that another timelord, which is a friend of the Doctor survived the time war (the 2005 Doctor Who series). This audio series is the *only fan production of star trek that features two apearances of the daleks and one apearance of the cybermen. I hope that this information will satisfy those who mean they can delete parts of this article, because they think that its content is not notable. Lastly I will give the source of this information: the darker projects website. Now I'd like to know why those audio plays where removed in the first place. I ask this community to recreate this section of this article since its purpose should be to list "most" of the fan productions and different types of them. Thanks. 89.59.146.35 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The materials lacked any assertion/establishment of notability -- no citations to reliable sources at all, actually. --EEMeltonIV 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I have tried three times in the last four months add blurbs on several of Darker Projects' Trek audio dramas -- Section 31 Files, Lost Frontier, Pioneers, and Star Wars Crossroads -- to no avail.

I see there is some requirement about citations to reliable sources ... and I am wondering if the actual website that produces the content being discussed doesn't count as a "reliable" source, what would?

Any clarification as to what would be considered "establishment of notability" would be quite appreciated as there is a wealth of information available about these programs that would probably be of interest to anyone searching this topic.

Thanks.

--mutarada

--Again, months later, I would like to ask: What is the logic deleting some entries regarding audio dramas? Is this an instance of people just being ridiculously picky, or would someone like to explain what would qualify as a "reliable" source to cite?

Further, while I realize the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations as set by Wikipedia, this whole debacle strikes me as following the 'letter of the law' versus the 'spirit of the law' and is entirely defeating the purpose of this page, which I presume would be to have a central location where one can find a listing and explanation of all or as many of the fan-produced programs out there for Joe Schmo to find.

What makes this doubly frustrating is also that not all productions are as in-your-face as others. Not all are media darlings (New Voyages) or as prolific or controversial (Hidden Frontier); likewise not all are able to catch the media spotlight because technically --and by definition-- they're supposed to operate under the radar. I just don't see what the big deal is about having a paragraph dedicated to a well-established series such as The Section 31 Files or Lost Frontier or why anytime either is posted, they are summarily removed solely because the producer didn't make it to Larry King Live.

Or is this a scenario where if I wanted to create a page dedicated to, say, "Star Trek: Pioneers" I would have to create said page on my own, by the rules of course, and then simply link to it, or are there so many disenfranchised nerds out there that anything I put up that fails to meet every last requirement would be immediately deleted? Where's the overarching quality control on this kind of thing?

Any explanation (something beyond or at least more in depth besides "it lacks a reliable source") would be very much appreciated. If there's a way to do this within the rules that everyone here are so vehemently upholding, great. Mutarada (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Mutarada


Perhap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutarada (talkcontribs) 03:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trekkies 3[edit]

As of 3-7-2007, Trekkies 3 was greenlighted scheduled for release in 2010 or 2011. [2], and I have contacted Denise Crosby personally about 5 months earlier, on the Utopia convention (Oct 18-20, 2006, Scheveningen, The Netherlands), where she stated that #3 was in the works and was going to cover fan films. Should we add that under media interest? Stoney3K 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if you can cite a published, reliable source. Personal correspondence doesn't meet the standard. --EEMeltonIV 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As per our Dutch fan club web site, referred to TrekMovie.com: [3]

You're All Nuts[edit]

I mean that in the friendliest of ways. It's been quite a while since I've been to this article, which was once a terrific way for me to find new Trek fan productions I hadn't yet heard of. I haven't needed it for a while, as my fan film schedule was quite full, but I came back, self-interestedly, to see if anyone had added my new show, Star Trek: Excelsior, to the mix (although, knowing WP policy as I do, I would not have added it myself.

Instead, I found that the article had been gutted, most of the useful information gone and the individual paragraphs devoted to defending each individual entry on the grounds of "notability." This ruins the prose, for one thing, and makes the article a fracking ugly monstrosity of suck. In the meantime, you've managed to remove some of the most influential (not to mention lengthy) fan shows on the Net, like DarkerProjects' Section 31 Files and Pendant's Defiant. Or Aurora. Or Pioneers. This in stark contrast to WP's coverage of fan films in the Star Wars, Doctor Who, and Buffy domains.

The worst part of all this is that it's based on a misunderstanding of WP policy. Go on, go back and read WP:NOTE. It is not about the relevance of facts within an article. It's about the relevance of a topic for an article. As a whole. On the article level. It's useful in determining AFD's. But we're not talking about an AFD here. We're talking about deleting perfectly relevant and useful facts that flesh out the article. We're talking about stripping an article down from what it could be--an overall survey of Star Trek fan productions and their cultural impact, citing relevant sources on that subject, followed by a general discussion on all completed fan projects--to what it currently is: self-interested bilge that no more than summarizes the information I could have gotten by a two minute Google search.

Not what WP is about, people. --BCSWowbagger 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say that other fan production subgenres have been treated differently? Hah! Why am I not surprised! Oh! I don't mean that there is any conspiracy to delete Star trek (although there are some who have demonstrated a prejudice against it right from the start because they perceive it to be Fancruft) I'm starting to think that this is simply a case of select Wikipedians trying to force WP into a role that it can never successfully fill. It is not Nature or Lancet or Scientific American. It is not and never can be a peer reviewed encyclopedia, it doesn't have the resources, the mandate or the audience for it.
I've washed my hands of posting new material to this article or trying to rehabilitate it because there is no desire on the part of the wikiguardians of the article for it. All I can see are two groups of Wikipedians, one that has no interest in or sympathy for the content of this article, the other that is selectively protecting the entries that they deem to be "notable", both of which are skilled enough in the arts of the Wiki to keep you locked down in fruitless argument over the admissability or notability of your sources whilst they can cull material with only the most cursory of motivations.
That doesn't mean to say that it doesn't still serve a purpose. It has a history button. I have been able to find some interesting new projects which have been posted on here and then culled - that neat looking Czech film for one. So my advise is KEEP POSTING NEW PROJECTS. They'll get deleted of course, but at least the serious researcher can still find this information with that wonderful history button.
Cheers --Kirok of L'Stok 11:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding this to an old message so probably no one will read it, but I just have to say how much I agree with the above comments. This morning, I added a reference for "Tales of the Seventh Fleet", with a source, and it was deleted within hours. I was amazed that no warning was given. I've never seen that before on Wikipedia. It was a good reminder to me why I had quit contributing, though. It had been a while and I'd forgotten how petty and counterproductive a lot of the things done by the regular "editors" is. Adherence to rules is more important than actual usefulness. Blackhawk66 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg War not the first non-parody film shown at an official convention[edit]

Someone, apparently either the creator of the film, or someone very close to him, keeps inserting the assertation that a showing of this film was the first time that Paramount/CBS had authorized the showing of a non-parody fanfilm at an official convention. Not only is this questionable under the conflict of interest guidelines, it's also not true. This article from StarTrek.com talks about the 40th Anniversary Convention and the premiere of the Star Trek: New Voyages episode "To Serve All My Days," almost a year before the dates claimed by the Borg War people. So unless they can find a showing of from before September 2006, Borg War was NOT the first non-parody fanfilm shown at an official convention, no matter what someone may or may not have told the Borg War in private correspondence, as mentioned in an earlier edit summary. MikeWazowski 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I don't want to get into a competition of who did what to whom, first, however in fact Borg War was indeed shown at an official convention before the Seattle Con. It was shown as one of two exhibition films at Conflux III in Canberra, Australia between 9-12 June, 2006. Yes, Paramount were informed but the Stone God did not even acknowledge receipt of the email as was their standard practise at the time. It was shown under Geoff's Creative Commons license - read his rather illuminating explanation of his rationale for it on his website. How do I know? I organised it and presented it. Conflux unfortunately recycles their website and it is now showing details of Conflux 4 and even the Wayback machine doesn't have a timetable. You have only my word on it and we all know what that is worth, don't we?
By the way, I believe there is a difference between tacit approval by silence as we got for Conflux and the documented approval that Mr. James has. Certainly the Seattle Con was a landmark event but ... uh, could you point to anywhere in the article where it says that it had Paramount approval? I seem to have missed that.--Kirok of L'Stok 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The last edit by TheRealFennShysa is fair, although stylistically I would have kept the word "big screen" even if "debut" was dropped to enforce the fact that it wasn't just projected behind a fan club's table. The visuals and sound quality of these things on the big screen is stunning.
Whilst we are talking about "official acceptance" I believe one of the things that this article has always whimped out on is by NOT pointing out that this fan film [Borg War] takes the stance that it - and by extension ALL MACHINIMA - can have its own creative commons license as new games material. The problem is that, surprisingly, this has never been picked up by any notable sources so to point it out is to create the news instead of reporting it. Yes, the dreaded Original Research (OR)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirok (talkcontribs) 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ...We have a bot watching for unsigned posts now? Interesting.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Been around for a while on various pages. --Fredrick day 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: SFI[edit]

Should be removed - it's site consists of a static single webpage and there are no WP:RS sources for it. I'd do it but I'd breach WP:3RR. --Fredrick day 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed. And reported him for violating 3RR himself, along with the legal threat. Naughty boy... MikeWazowski 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Four Cornerstones of Star Trek Fan Films[edit]

Guys, knowing how important THE TRUTH (as defined by Wikipedia) is to you, I thought I would point something out to you.

That last paragraph in the Legal issue section is misleading - um, unintentionally I'm sure. The "guidelines" worked out between Paramount and New Voyages seem to have been given a source that is um, not exactly unsuitable. The article only says "The studio that owns the Star Trek franchise, Paramount, has supplied Cawley with a list of guidelines he must follow when making New Voyages. The most important of these are that he can't sell downloads for profit, and he must also properly credit the studio since he is borrowing its intellectual property."

This only comments on two of the four cornerstones of the known and accepted rules, No.1 & No.4. The other two ...

  2. It cannot be shown in festivals or at conventions or any other venue where money is charged for admission either directly for the film or the event itself.
  3. It can only be a free download and cannot be offered for a "donation".

... have no source.

Now, you know and I know that these were posted as a statement by Jack Marshall, at that time co-producer of Cow Creek Films, the makers of New Voyages, on the TrekBBS. However the catch22 is that a BBS is not acceptable as a source by Wikipedia. Since the post, which the unscrupulous amongst us might call a primary source document, is obviously unsuitable for inclusion in such an august document as this, perhaps you should reconsider its use.

Either way, could you please explain how you can change the wording of a quote, as you did with "in lieu"? Oh! That's right, it's not a quote because it comes from a questionable source. So does that make it original research?

I'm not saying to do one thing or another, I "merely remind you of the fact, and leave the rest to your sense of duty." LOL! Such a knotty problem, glad it's not mine. I've published the original work that I did on this in my totally non-notable and UN-encyclopedic Fanzine, "Acrux", wherein I don't have to worry about such fol-de-rol ... I can focus instead on reporting things as they happened and not as the, ahem, "notable" press would have it remembered.--Kirok of L'Stok (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've altered it to reflect what seems to be in the link - next time instead of being a "pointy" person - you could do it youself? --Fredrick day (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Heavens no! I'm just trying to help you do your job of making this article more "encyclopedic". I certainly can't do it - I obviously don't have the right frame of mind for it. You don't get the point I was trying to make, do you Frederick? That list of four points is *important*, perhaps pivotal. Because of point 2 the showing of New Voyages and OGAM films at the 40th anniversary convention was a major breakthrough. No3 is a major headache because it means that even indirect donations cannot be accepted. By "shaving the edges off the square peg" (the facts) to suit the "round hole" (your source) you have reduced the effectiveness of the article and you are perfectly happy with this. I don't suppose it occurred to you to try to find a source that might be "acceptable"? If not, why not?--Kirok of L'Stok (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Audio Dramas[edit]

Is there any reason that I should not be able to add audio dramas (i.e., Darker Projects' 'Section 31 Files' or Pendant Audio's 'Defiant', among others) to this article? They were present previously, but I've noted that someone(s) have gone pretty much overboard in removing them -- especially given that much more latitude has been granted for other fan production areas of Wikipedia (Star Wars, Doctor Who, Buffy). --Mhking (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"what about X" is never an good argument on wikipedia, if you see unsourced cruft in the star wars etc articles, then remove it. If you have multiple reliable sources (NOT fan forums) that indicate notability for the projects you have mentioned, you can add them back in - if not, then you shouldn't or they will be removed. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's only fair. The removals of the previous material were done despite multiple citations, and appeared to be more a matter of someone trying to make a point than anything else. I'll note appropriate citations with anything I add. --Mhking (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek VS Batman[edit]

no mention of this great parody? http://www.racsofilms.com/trekdownloads.htm --89.186.137.185 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Metren incident" in this article[edit]

I'm not ST fan, but i've heard about its premiere from the news some time ago. Pseudohuman (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Phoenix project[edit]

Hello. As I tried to include the Star Trek: Phoenix entry in this list, I noticed other editors deleted the entry, citing its status (preproduction) or lack of press as reasons.

I want to point out the fact that other projects in the page don't even bother to cite references, specially those in the parody section. Furthermore, other projects, such as Helena, only depend on their own site for sources. To prevent misinterpretations, let me be clear in that I have nothing against the Helena, and only cite it as an example. I neither want nor expect its entry to be deleted, but the issue rises a few questions.

So, I have to ask: what do you, fine people, think is the actual criteria for inclusion? Perhaps I should mention that the latter issue (lack of third-party coverage) is extremely likely to be remedied in the short term, at any rate.CubOfJudahsLion (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The other sites mentioned here, including Helena and the parodies, are all mentioned in other forms of media -- whether television, magazines, newspapers or on radio. From all appearances, Star Trek Phoenix has not. If it has, please cite that here. --Mhking (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The other editors were entirely correct to remove the Phoenix project - and your comment about how other projects don't cite references is incorrect. Everything remaining on the page either cites references or notability claims inline on this page, or have their own articles and are referenced there. Helena and Odyssey are coasting right now on borrowed notability, as they are spinoffs of Hidden Frontier, which is clearly notable. Your project, while obviously important to you, is not made my anyone notable, has no reliable third-party news sources that demonstrate any kind of notability, and has not even been made yet, much less released. Maybe after your project is released it might qualify if it gets some kind of coverage, but that's six months away at the earliest. Wikipedia is not here to be your advertising platform or substitute website. I'd advise you to look over the page on reliable sources before you try to add this project back in anytime soon. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to all concerned; the Phoenix entry isn't verifiable by thirds yet. In my defense, it's been ages since the last time I contributed. CubOfJudahsLion (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be adequate citation for mentioning this project now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - and I have posted my reply and reasons to MDGx (the current editor trying to insert it) here. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StoneTrek.jpg[edit]

The image Image:StoneTrek.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Vids[edit]

Someone who knows more than me should add a short section on Star Trek vidding (parallel to machinima), I think... Elatb (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Fan Productions[edit]

Why aren't Star Trek: Specter of the Past and Star Trek: Aurora mentioned at all? They're significantly well known fan productions with substantial material already released. While neither is completely finished (Specter is currently getting it's temp dialogue replaced and Aurora has only released 4 20 minute episodes), they are significantly unique enough and should be mentioned here. - 15.195.201.90 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not listed because they don't have the referencing necessary to back up a claim that they are "significantly unique enough". MikeWazowski (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, i didnt read the previous discussions, didn't realize the wikiNazi's were warping notability requirements on this page - 15.195.201.90 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Same issue with Star Trek: Secret Voyage, where a simple Search would provide more than enough reference material. Of course it's easier to delete things, then it is to do a proper job. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because I did a search on "Star Trek: Secret Voyage", and out of the only 46 unique results that came up, not a single one of them was from anything that could be considered a reliable source - it's all blogs, message boards, and their own website, for a "series" that hasn't even launched yet. Where is this "more than enough reference material" you seem to think exists? MikeWazowski (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Really. And unlike you I gave a link to how I got my search results. What did you use, Doogle? It only works properly on March 17th. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Really. Unlike your original open ended search, which brings up all kind of irrelevant results, a Google search on the specific term "Star Trek: Secret Voyage" brings up only 46 unique results. By the way, try to go past page 6 in your results link - only 46 unique results there as well. Still nothing resembling a reliable source. Case closed. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Curious. I got 210 unique results. Admittedly most were Facebook, but Facebook is where a lot of things are going on these days, and Wikipedia may have to change the rules about Facebook soon. The current near total ban doesn't quite work. As an example Facebook is the only site I've found that has an unlimited photo upload limit, so my photographs of one room school houses in the Township of Markham are all on Facebook (I'm writing a book on the subject). I'm also writing a book an antique farm equipment, and collecting a pile of photos of some really neat old tractors, some of which are damned near a century old. Flickr and Picasa are too expensive to use for the volume of photos I've got to upload. Facebook isn't. Which is why my pictures are open to everyone to view. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Still only getting 46 unique - you only get the higher number if you click on the link that says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 46 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." But more importantly, there still isn't anything that can be considered a reliable source. Your potential book and the tools you plan on using has got nothing to do with the fanfilm that you brought up. You've failed to show that there's "more than enough reference material", as you originally claimed. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Should this article be included in Category:Fan fiction? Goustien (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not unless it talks about fan fiction. And this page doesn't. However, I see the German version linked from this page actually does talk about fan fiction. de:Star Trek: Fan Fiction und Parodien--Duesouthfan (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

CBC Link regarding copyright/fair use[edit]

As the link is dead, does anyone know an alternative, or could it link to http://web.archive.org/web/20101024133426/http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/05/27/koenig050527.html ? --Schorhr (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Continues[edit]

Not yet mentioned in the article is "Star Trek Continues". Mentioned by Slate (magazine)[4], TrekMovie.com[5], Escape Pod (podcast)[6], Yahoo! Voices (= Associated Content)[7], among others. So far, they've released one episode, called "Pilgrim of Eternity", in May 2013.[8] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Stars Vic Mignogna as James T. Kirk, Todd Haberkorn as Spock, Grant Imahara as Hikaru Sulu, Christopher Doohan (son of James Doohan) as Montgomery Scott, and in the first episode Michael Forest reprises his role as Apollo (Who Mourns for Adonais?), and Jamie Bamber plays a Mr. Simone. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and let's not forget Michele Specht as Dr. Elise MacKennah. :) --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: Renegades[edit]

As mentioned in Template:Star_Trek_fan_productions, there is an upcoming production called Star Trek: Renegades yet it isn't included in this article. Should information about that upcoming pilot show be added to this article? gt24 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Aurora references[edit]

Star Trek Aurora references:

I suggest that this fan film is notable and should be included in this article.

Scanlyze (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)