Talk:Star Trek

Uhura

I recently changed the description of Uhura from "African" to "Black". I prefer "Black" because a in the context (Cultural Impact) it's the fact that she was black that is significant, not her African-ness b) I didn't find any evidence that Uhura was African, in the sense of being from Africa. Presumably in the Star Trek Universe Earth is more multicultural even than it is today. (I admit that I am partly persuaded by Ouroboros' statement that she spoke Swahili, but she was also the ship linguist if I remember). c) African isn't specific enough. Even today some Africans are white. I'm not set on my opinions, but I'd like some other views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The earliest version was "African-American", until a few days ago. It was perfectly fine.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Uhura was actually American? If not then I don't think it was 'fine'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Canonically, she is from the future's "United States of Africa" according to both Paramount's official "StarTrek.com" web-site, and the original "Writer's Guide" for the series, although this has never been mentioned on screen. A rough draft of a script for the Animated Series said the same. However, Jordi LaForge (spelling??) is from the "African Confederation". At any rate, the writer's certainly do NOT consider Uhura to be from the USAmerica, so my mistake.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that does persuade me that Uhura is definitely African, and so removes my objection b) above. However I still think in context that the culturally significant aspect of her is that she was black, rather than African. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For good or bad reasons, the preferred usage these days is African. (And the word 'black' sometimes includes natives of India.) "African" is usually used to refer to the indigenous people of Africa rather than people of European descent who live in Africa, though to us Yanks it might be clearer if we said "Native African" in the sense when we mean "Native American". Typically in the American continent, words like Canadian or American refer to a nationality or citizenship-, while across the Atlantic, one more frequently means an ethnic ancestry when speaking of Danish, English, French, German, or Dutch. The word "French" can refer to either nationality or ancestry. In the German language a German citizen is Bundesdeutsche but one of German ancestry is Volksdeutsche. In essence, the language is a tad unclear, but these days the preferred term for dark-skinned people of African descent is "African" rather than "black".--WickerGuy (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also on screen evidence of her being African, as opposed to just being black but having been born elsewhere. She was fluent in Swahili, on screen. I'd add that the initial edit changing it to "black" has the summary "we're all adults here," which says to me that this may have been made out of a perceived feeling of "African" being used because it was "politically correct." I would disagree with this notion, it is being used because in this case it is factual, the character was from Africa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the summary, and I agree with the factuality of African. However I still think that the culturally significant thing about Uhura was that she was black, not that she was African. Had the communications officer looked like African Pieter Willem Botha it would have been a lot less culturally significant. The use of African as a euphemism for black is restricted to the United States as far as I know. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In Europe the term 'black African' is often used, but since WP says use American usage for American topics and Star Trek is an American TV series, isn't that an argument for using "African"?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I would agree, but "black African" would be understood everywhere, whereas "African" would be less precise and less clear. And of course "African" is really skating round the issue. A white African would not have had a cultural impact. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen someone like Botha described as simply "African." Possibly South African, but virtually always Boer, which is a distinct, white ethnic group. A group that didn't start out in Africa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

However he clearly is African, being from Africa. In any other part of the article this wouldn't be significant. But Uhura's cultural significance stems from her blackness, not her African-ness. Had she been portrayed as black and from America her cultural significance would have been none the less. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The context of the reaction to Uhura was the character's ethnicity, not region of origin. It would make sense to use the ethnic term with the most neutral connotation, which would be the scientifically acceptable Negroid. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how many ethnic groups actually live in the CONTINENT of Africa? Negroid is no more scientific than Zulu, Bantu, Ibibio, Maasai, Tuareg or many other terms. In fact there is no concise scientific definition of "race" with reference to humans, as you can get as much variation WITHIN some "races" as BETWEEN...82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Navbox ??

Cartoon Boy and Vilnisr - it doesn't appear to make any difference to the appearance which of your two edit's stand. I presume there's been a change in the way the WP template works. Why don't you comment on the change and resolve which is the current standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impeachable (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that! About navbox: "Star Trek navbox" provides more info and more links to main articles which makes navigation shorter and easier!Vilnisr (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though an edit war is on the horizon since Cartoon Boy has gone and reverted the change again, or so it seems. Can you guys talk it out please? Personally, I think the "Star Trek navbox" template is the better option. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There is no war, at least for me. I did not revert last Cartoon Boy edit and i don't want to fight! I think "Star Trek navbox" template is the better, but i wan't to hear other opinions! I vote for "Star Trek navbox"!Vilnisr (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I'm sorry. I did not mean to start an edit war, and I will voice my opinion - I seriously believe that the navbox template is way too oversized. Sure, it's more informative, but sometimes less is more, and that is the case here, I think. For starters, I think it's better to have the seperate television series and films in their own section. Is there any way we can make the navbox seem less "clogged"? That's my main problem with this - it almost seems like too much information is there - I can't navigate my way around it, actually. To be completely honest, since the beginning, I have had no idea as to why the navbox template was started when we had the regular one. I can't be the only one who thinks this. Again, I am sorry for my edits. I never intended to provoke an edit war, and I apoligise if I got on anyone's bad side. I seriously believe that the first template is the best way to go. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 3:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is big, but it's because there are 6 series in Star Trek, but I don't see a problem to navigate, 'cuz there are category for each series with main articles (characters, seasons and movies), where you can chose where to go, it's also easier to navigate between different series. Only way to make it smaller, is removing character list. I think, it's not necesary, but i'm ready to discuss it! About second template, i think it's completely uncategorized, example: movie list.

"it's better to have the seperate television series and films in their own section" - movies are a part of series and can't be separated from them!

p.s. it's not a biggest navbox Vilnisr (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is too much crap in the navbox. For instance, there is a link to the main page for each series' episodes, there is no need to also have a link to each season,

· Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7) ·.

Also, having links to the main characters of each series makes it messy, those links belong in the navbox for the particular series. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved intents back- Some university pages have switched to this style. Take for example my alma mater. {{Texas A&M University}} I could make quick navbox replacement. Oldag07 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It partly done:

Oldag07 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

if you put in just Franchise + (series x) it will be difficulty to navigate between series, but if you put all series (Franchise + Series 1 + series 2 + ...), it will be the same, so easier to collapse "Star Trek navbox" Vilnisr (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please clarify? Thanks. . 192.231.40.3 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

clarify what?Vilnisr (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with IP person. could you please restate what you are trying to say Vilnisr? thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

your navbox contain 2 sections ("Franchise" and "The Original Series"), and if it's stay this way and you want to make similar navbox for each series, like ("Franchise" + "The Animated Series");("Franchise" + "The Next Generation")..., then it will be difficulty to navigate between series, but if you want to make just 1 navbox with "Franchise"+"The Original Series"+"The Animated Series"+"The Next Generation"+....., then it will be the same what we have right now and then there is no reason to change it Vilnisr (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First interracial kiss

While it was the first depiction of an interracial kiss on American television, in the take broadcast there was no actual lip contact. According to Nichelle Nichols, quoted in a book about the making of Star Trek, they shot the scene several times, with and without actually kissing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

....correct. They filmed the no-contact "kiss" (which you can kind of tell if you know you're looking for it). Which is why it's important the article is framed in terms of first *depiction*, if not actual, i'racial kiss. --EEMIV (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Academy Award

The article states that the 2009 Star Trek film saw the franchises first Academy Award. Didn't Star Trek: The Motion Picture win best soundtrack at the 1980 awards?86.183.71.248 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It was nominated, but the winner was "A Little Romance". Donners (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New series rumors?

I've been hearing rumors that a new Star Trek series is being planned. Further digging (and my interest in Dead Like Me) lead me to these pages:

• Part II of Bryan Fuller's interview with iF Magazine,
• New Star Trek TV show (SFF Media),
• Bryan Fuller serious about creating new Star Trek series (TrekMovie.com) and
• Former 'Star Trek' Scribe Bryan Fuller Calls For Franchise's Return To TV.

But these are all kinda old-ish... I didn't want to add anything to the article itself, because my sources are old and as far as I've heard, nothing's official yet. I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this stuff, especially if it's more recent. Thanks! cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)