Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks

Running time

I didn't see anything for running time, I haven't looked through the citations, just wondered if anyone saw the running time to add or not. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

First animated series since the 1970s?

According to the article "It is the first animated series created for All Access, and the first animated Star Trek series since the 1973–74 series Star Trek: The Animated Series.", but is this really true? Star Trek: Short Treks had two animated episodes ("The Girl Who Made the Stars" and "Ephraim and Dot"). But it also had live-action episodes as well, so I don't know how to count this. --172.113.243.228 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

People don't really count Short Treks as an actual series, its more of a companion to the others shows than a full series unto its own. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Short Treks has animated episodes, but it isn't an animated series. It is predominately live action. Oldag07 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Change Lower Decks page to Lower

I have suggested moving the Lower Decks page to Lower Decks (Star Trek: The Next Generation), and making the term Lower Decks redirect here. Please comment on this talk page: Talk:Lower_Decks#Requested_move_6_August_2020. Oldag07 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Guest cast for the season

Keeping track of the guest cast to help determine who is recurring as well as credit order: - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

101

• Jessica McKenna as Barnes* 101 102 103 106, Cerritos computer 103 104 106
• Phil LaMarr as a Starfleet admiral 101
• Ben Rodgers as Stevens* 101 108 109
• Paul Scheer as Andy Billups* 101 102 103 104 106 108 109 110
  • McKenna, LaMarr, Rodgers, Scheer

102

• Jess Harnell as K'orin 102
• Tom Kenny as Quimp 102
• Kari Wahlgren as an Anabaj female 102 110, Angie 105
• Ryan Ridley as injured Bajoran crew member 102 110
  • Harnell, Kenny, Wahlgren, McKenna, Ridley, Scheer

103

• Neil Casey as unknown 103 110
• Kevin Michael Richardson as Vindor 103
• Sam Richardson as Vendome* 103
• Michelle Wong as Starfleet admiral 103
• Nolan North as unknown 103, Niko 105, Old/young ensign 107, Winger Bingston, Jr. 109, unknown 110
  • Casey, Kevin Michael Richardson, Sam Richardson, McKenna, Wong, North, Scheer

104

• Haley Joel Osment as O'Connor 104
• Eric Bauza as unknown 104 105
• Al Rodrigo as Durango 104
• Vanessa Marshall as Merced science officer 104, Ottessa Warren 107
  • Osment, Bauza, Rodrigo, Scheer, Marshall, McKenna

105

• Gillian Jacobs as Barb Brinson 105
• Matt Walsh as Ron Docent 105
• Marcus Henderson as Jet Manhaver* 105 109
• Lauren Tom as Vancouver captain 105
  • Jacobs, Walsh, Henderson, Wahlgren, Tom, Bauza, North

106

• Tim Robinson as Fletcher* 106
• Jack McBrayer as Badgey* 106 110
• Asif Ali as Asif 106
• Artemis Pebdani as Karavitus 106
• J.G. Hertzler as Drookmani captain 106
  • Robinson, McBrayer, Ali, Pebdani, Hertzler, McKenna, Scheer

107

• Toks Olagundoye as Amina Ramsey 107
• Jennifer Hale as The Dog and Durga 107
• Maurice LaMarche as Ellis and Drew Prachett 107
  • Olagundoye, North, Hale, Marshall, LaMarche

108

• John de Lancie as Q 108
• Kurtwood Smith as Clar 108
• Kenneth Mitchell as Captain Seartave 108, Black Ops officer #2 108, Romulan guard #1 108
• Brandon Johnson as unknown 108
  • de Lancie, Smith, Scheer, Mitchell, Rodgers, Johnson

109

• Paul F. Tompkins as Migleemo 109
• Gabrielle Ruiz as Lemonts 109
• Gary Cole as Leonardo da Vinci 109
  • Scheer, Tompkins, Rodgers, Ruiz, Cole, North, Henderson

110

• Jonathan Frakes as William T. Riker 110
• Marina Sirtis as Deanna Troi 110
• Kether Donohue as Peanut Hamper 110
• Rich Fulcher as unknown 110
• Merrin Dungey as Solvang first officer 110
• Echo Kellum as Titan lieutenant #1 110
• Lauren Lapkus as Jennifer* 110
  • Frakes, Sirtis, Donohue, McBrayer, Fulcher, Wahlgren, Dungey, North, Ridley, Casey, Kellum, Scheer, Lapkus

Season 1 review being added to this article

@Ajd and Oknazevad: The review you have added to this article cannot possible be a review for the entire series because the second season has not yet been released. It is a review of the first season regardless of how general you word it. As an overview of the two season articles, this article should just have the aggregator scores as summary so as not to duplicate the actual review info. In the future we could add more general reviews discussing the series as a whole, but that is clearly not possible yet because any reviews released (including this one) are only talking about the first season. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm only going to join in here and say that I agree with Adamstom.97 that we need more general reviews. This show is on CBS All Access (well now Paramount+) so there has to be all sorts of reviews. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Any review of the entire series is going to be a review of the first season at this point because the second season is still in production. By that mistaken criteria we cannot have any reviews for any series that is still in production at all, as there's no way for the reviewer to know everything about future seasons. That's just incorrect. It is clear from reading the review that it is intended as a review of the overall series, examining its tone and premise, which are perfectly valid things for a reviewer to comment on without having seen the entire not-yet-existent future seasons. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't, but your statement about series in production is definitely a red herring. If a series has released two seasons and has another in production, any review specifically discussing the first season should go with that season's information, any review specifically discussing the second season should go with that season's information, and any review discussing both seasons generally can go with the series' general information, so I am not at all suggesting that we have no series reviews for shows that haven't finished. The same logic applies to a series that has released one season and has another in production. We have an article for season one information, an article for season two information, and an article for general series information. This review discusses the first season but does not discuss the second season (since that would be impossible), so it cannot go at the season two article or at the general series article. It must go at the season one article only. By insisting that this review applies to both seasons without you or the reviewer having seen the second season you are making an unsupported WP:SYNTH claim. It may turn out that this review does apply to the second season once it is released, so in that case if the reviewer was to come out and say that they have the same thoughts about the second season then there would be an argument to add those details here then. But at the moment you are violating Wikipedia policies by stating that this review applies to the second season when we know that is not true and there are no sources to support such a claim. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. The only parallels I can think of, in terms of a show having multiple seasons are She-Ra and the Princesses of Power and Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts. Even RWBY which has multiple seasons, but only has one reception section. I think we have two options here. We could gut the reception section on the season 1 page (and a possible one on the season 2 page) and just move it to the main page and not have a reception page for specific seasons, but just mention i in one combined reception section for season 1, 2, and whatever seasons come after that. It could be formatted, once the second season is finished, like the Kipo page, which indicates which season is being reviewed, and so on. However, we could also format it like the seasons pages for the Simpsons (like this one), with reception sections for each season. It seems, however, we are leaning toward the latter choice, from the existing structure of the main page, the season 1 and the season 2 pages. Adamstom.97, I'd say that having that review in the reception section for the main article makes sense at this point because only one season has been released. I don't think Oknazevad is saying the review applies to season two. Historyday01 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The full review sections should definitely be at each season article. And again, if Oknazevad thinks the review doesn't belong to season two (which would be correct) then they should agree that it needs to go at the season one article because reviews that only belong to season one should obviously go at the season one article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom97, is there any content currently in the Reception section that you believe should be in this article and not the Season 1 article? Is there any content, real or hypothetical, that you believe could conceivably belong in the Reception section of this article currently? If so, why? Anyway, as oknazevad says, it is clear from reading the review that it is intended to be a review of the series Lower Decks, not of specifically season 1 of Lower Decks, even though of course season 1 is the only season that exists so far. Although it is possible that future developments could change the reviewer's opinion in unforeseeable ways, assuming that that review isn't about the series at large but only about the first season smacks of a WP:CRYSTAL violation to me. The review doesn't even say anything about "season 1" specifically. AJD (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There are currently a bunch of reviews out there for the first season. None of them, regardless of if they explicitly say they are for the first season or not, can possibly be about the second season because that season is still in production and has not been released. To suggest that reviews for the first season also apply to the second season are blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. We just cannot know that, and neither can the reviewers. All review information that is for the first season should go at the article for the first season. When the second season is released, all review information that is for the second season should go at the article for the second season. At this article, which holds general series details and a brief summary of key points from the season articles, we should have a brief summary of the reviews for each season (helpfully provided to us by the review aggregators listed) plus any general review information that covers multiple seasons. Since we do not have any season two reviews yet, and we do not have any general review information that covers multiple seasons (since we cannot possibly have either of those things yet) the only review information for this series should be the season one reviews at the season one article, and the season one summary (review aggregators) at this article.

Lets look at another example to help clarify this. Star Trek: Discovery has season articles for each of its four seasons, plus a general series overview article that includes details that apply to the series as a whole plus summary information for each season. Each season article has reception information that applies directly to that season. The series article summarizes each of them using the aggregator information. If we were to do at Discovery what you are trying to do here, we would need to take review information from the first season article (which likely will not say anything about "season 1" specifically since the second season was not ordered until after reviews were being released for the first season) and add it to the main series article. But those reviews are not about the series in general, they cannot possibly be because the second and third seasons did not exist then. Those reviews only cover the first season, as that was what was available when the reviews were written, and we know now that this is especially true since each season is so different. If any further review information was to be added to the main Discovery article, it should not be copied from the individual season articles, but should be information discussing the reception to the series across multiple seasons. For instance, it might make sense to add critics discussing the big differences between the seasons and what this means for the wider series. The same logic applies here.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the second season is exactly the same as the first and reviewers such as this one come out saying their feelings about the series have not changed. But again, we cannot possible know that until it happens and any suggestion otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia policies. So yes, we have reviews that do not explicitly say they are about the first season. But until the second season is released, we will just need to be patient until we can see how it is received and how the series in general, across both seasons, is received. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Adamston.97 on this issue, for the reasons stated. I see no reason for this particular review of the show to be included in this series article when there are now separate articles for its season(s). —ADavidB 04:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no investment in this particular review of the show. But it is just simply absurd to state that a review of the entire series can't be discussed on the page about the entire series simply because more episodes may be released at some time in the future. AJD (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ajd sums it up best, I think. The assumption that a review that was published around the series premier is only about the first season and not the series as a whole is without merit. Yes, the review is based only on the material the reviewer has seen, but the reviewer is clearly making a judgement of the series as a whole, as is clear from the review's own words. In other words, it's not a season one review, and to state otherwise is either a failure of reading comprehension or an imposition of non-existent criteria. oknazevad (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I agree with you (and with AJD), that the reviewer is examing the whole show at this current time. I'm not invested in that review either, I just came across it because I have a Google Alert for the show, so I can add articles and such on here. Historyday01 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If we were to follow that logic, then all reviews of the series should be added here and nowhere else. But the whole point of the season articles is to move season-specific information to those articles so that this article doesn't have to include every detail about every season of the show. So yes, there is clearly an argument for having reviews at the series article that several people agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be unnecessarily duplicating information across the series and season articles and this is an obvious candidate for moving to the season one article. Just like the plot for the first season was actually the plot of the series at the time it was added to the article, but has since been moved to the season article because that is where it applies now. Whatever is decided here, we definitely should not just have all the same review information in two different articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's where the issue is arising: you assume it's season-specific material when it clearly isn't. I agree there's no need to duplicate it across articles (though I don't see it as strictly harmful), but the article it belongs in in this one, not the season article, because it is clearly intended as commentary on the whole series. oknazevad (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How can it not be season-specific when only the first season has aired, and season 2 is known to be on the way? All reviews thus far can only be for season 1, even if the future season 2 was unknown or ignored at the time. Since there is a sub-article for season 1, reviews not including season 2 go there. The same logic for creation of season subarticles applies to location of their associated information. —ADavidB 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

By that logic there should be no reviews in the series article until the series has ended. No, that's not how it works. A reviewer can review the concept and tone of a series at any point during the series broadcast without it being just about the season being broadcast at the time. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If/when there is a review from a reliable source covering multiple seasons of this series, I'll support its inclusion in the main series article. —ADavidB 02:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oknazevad are you seriously suggesting we put all the information about season 1 in the series article and not season 1? That defeats the purpose of having a season 1 article and will just make it more confusing when we start expanding the season 2 article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we have to examine a review and engage with its purpose to decide if it is reviewing the season in particular or if it is examine the broader concept of the series. The latter does not belong in the season-specific article because it's not specific to the season just because of the timeframe it was published. Otherwise there would be no reviews in the series article at all. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

we have to examine a review and ... decide if it is reviewing the season in particular or if it is examine the broader concept of the series How are you doing this when you have not seen the second season? Sounds like you are making up what defines the season and what defines the series before seeing more than just the first season and then applying that opinion to the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually reading the review and comprehending the reviewer's intention. Why can't you understand that point? I don't need to see a second season of the series to judge the reviewer's intent. It's not that complicated. Clearly the reviewer is intending to judge the series, and more specifically the series' tone and concept, and therefore it is about the series as a whole. "But the reviewer has only seen season one." So? Their review is not intended as a comprehensive examination of every aspect of the series. That doesn't make it invalid as a reaction to the general premise and execution. The idea that one has to see the entire series before one can critique it is faulty, and impossible to fulfill before the series concludes. We don't set up impossible criteria on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom97, do you also intend to move information like "It follows the low-ranking support crew of the starship U.S.S. Cerritos in the year 2380" and "Tawny Newsome, Jack Quaid, Noël Wells, and Eugene Cordero voice 'lower decks' crew members" to the season 1 article instead of mentioning them in the series article? The article does not cite reliable sources that make those assertions on the basis of having seen season 2 (which, I stress again, does not yet exist). So by the standards you seem to be proposing, sources only state that those facts are true of season 1, not that they are true of the series, and therefore they don't belong here. AJD (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer in question (or at least the publisher) waited until all episodes of the first season had aired before publishing the review. It was clearly based on season 1's episodes. As noted in my prior response, a review of multiple seasons of a multi-season series would rightly belong in a main article. Otherwise, the article for the season reviewed includes the review. If a review is truly about general premise that would necessarily apply across an entire series, I'd expect a short quotation to show this would be appropriate. It's not an impossibility. I've seen sources that confirm the return of those voicing the main characters for season 2, if such will help change one's mind about content inclusion. —ADavidB 14:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, this article should include an overview of both season articles. The premise of each season, main cast, and review aggregator scores are all standard things to include in such an overview. Details on a season 1-specific review are not. If we are giving our opinion on what the reviewer's intent is then I agree with Adavidb, this reviewer clearly waited until the whole first season was available to them, watched it, and then gave their opinion on those episodes to make a suggestion about whether their readers should watch the season now that it is available. But it doesn't matter if you disagree with that interpretation because we shouldn't be arguing about our own opinions. We have to objectively look at the review, acknowledge that it is based on the first season only even if it uses vague language, and then put it at the first season article. When we get reviews covering multiple seasons then we can add stuff here as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler in 'Cast and Characters'

The 'Cast and Characters' entry for Fred Tatasciore as Shaxs includes this: "Shaxs dies sacrificing himself for Rutherford at the end of the first season."

Plot (as opposed to general background) details would not typically be expected in this section, so this seems inappropriate. However, when I started to edit the page intending to remove it, I found this comment embedded: "Do not remove this. Wikipedia contains spoilers (see WP:SPOILERS). Removal will be reverted".

While it's true in general that Wikipedia contains spoilers, they would not generally be included *there*. This is clearly a plot detail, not character background, so it's irrelevant for this section, and thus inappropriate. (Clearly I'm not the first to think so, given the presence of the comment!). Suggest that it should be removed, as should the restriction on editing.

More generally... who gets to decide that changes to this specific bit of text will be reverted, and is it really appropriate for their authority to be used in that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C17:1400:9F20:8413:823D:CB52 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Some may only expect spoilers to be in a plot section, though the third list item in the spoiler guideline's Why... section includes 'character descriptions' as an example of other sections that should also be expected to have spoilers based on the name. That said, no one editor gets to make final decisions on such matters. Rather than the 'removals will be reverted' comment, my preference would be to suggest that future editors obtain consensus on the talk page before removal of spoiler information (or to point to any related talk page discussion that already occurred, but this seems to be it). —ADavidB 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the character died in the first season is a pretty significant character detail, and per Adavidb we do call out this section as potentially having spoilers in the spoiler guidelines for Wikipedia. As for who gets to decide that changes to this specific bit of text will be reverted, while the wording of the comment can be debated, it is not uncommon for notes to be added in such instances where Wikipedia's rules are being consistently ignored by inexperienced editors. I wouldn't read that much into it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Trolling is not okay, WP:SPOILER is not an excuse. Editors still don't get to just blurt out the secret about Luke Skywalker's father. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and there are ways to make sure it is detailed and comprehensive without being abusive or hostile to readers. I made a small adjustment to the word order to start the sentence with the words At the end of the first season which keeps all the same information but gives readers a last chance to stop reading if they don't want to know yet (something I would have appreciated because I only wanted an introduction to the show). Of course I assume the edit was made in good faith and no one was being tactless and inconsiderate on purpose, but it is a surprising it had not been rewritten already. -- 109.79.72.153 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic detail unsuited for lede.

There is a disagreement here about what's suited in a lede paragraph. I say digressing into detail of how a streaming service was later renamed is off topic and is not enough of a "high point" in the main text to summarize in lede. The other guy says it's somehow important enough to mention in the lede. I think his edit history suggests a bit of a fanboy mentality and it's probably clouding his judgement towards inclusion. That is, a fan is probably more inclined to feel like everything slightly connected to those fantasy worlds is important. (Sorry man, just my impression.)

He suggests that "We will be unnecessarily confusing people if we don't have this", but that's just not so. People aren't that easily confused. Such name changes are commonplace and are usually unnotable unless the topic is the company/service itself. People don't get confused about it, they just roll with it. And, the matter is covered quite well in the link and in the main text, so trimming it out of the lede doesn't send people careening towards confusion anyway. But mostly, the matter is a small detail on a merely-ancillary topic -- it's okay to be "confused" a little bit on matters that aren't the article's subject.

What say you all? 142.105.159.178 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The first season was released on CBS All Access, which was then rebranded to Paramount+. The second season is being released on Paramount+, and the third season is expected to be as well. By removing the rebranding explanation you are making the reader think that the whole series is on CBS All Access, which will be confusing once they see that season two and three are listed for Paramount+. Or you are confusing readers who know that it is currently on Paramount+ when you state that it is currently on CBS All Access, which was never a well-known entity. Yes, they could work it all out eventually by doing additional research, but that is completely unnecessary when we can clear up the confusion straight away with four or so words. We are hardly "digressing into detail". A good example of this being done elsewhere is Supernatural (American TV series) which is in the exact same boat.

Also, this statement I think his edit history suggests a bit of a fanboy mentality and it's probably clouding his judgement towards inclusion. That is, a fan is probably more inclined to feel like everything slightly connected to those fantasy worlds is important. is a completely unnecessary and inaccurate personal attack, and a bit rich for an IP editor who is assuming that all readers will know the same details of this show that they do, which we should never assume. People don't get confused about it, they just roll with it. is not how Wikipedia works I'm afraid. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)