Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

Archives

---

• Number One (early 2006)
• Number Two (late 2006)
• Number Three (early 2007)
• Number Four (2007-2009)
• Number Five (2009-May 2010)
• Number Six (May 2010-December 2010)
• Number Seven (2011)

Open RM for Hikaru Sulu

* (Discuss) – Hikaru Sulu → Sulu (Star Trek) Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The Original Series/archive1

Star Trek: The Original Series has been peerly reviewed by Sjones23. I just happened to introduce the peer review, that's all. For skilled writers, I am just a novice and inexperienced to write professionally into FA-status. Can anyone solve the problems? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken image?

Is File:USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701),_ENT1231.jpg broken for anyone else? --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, broken for me as well. Strange, I'm sure that file displayed properly in the past. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed by Developers. (I poked them on IRC) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect feedback

I redirected Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek to Spacecraft in Star Trek. The former is the result of an oddball merge -- Starfleet starship registry and, I believe, Other Starfleet ship classes (a collection of miscellaneous starship classes). The articles independently were collections of overwhelmingly in-universe trivia (I say having added 11K to the registry article in 2006); merged, it retained the trivia and squished it into an awkward-looking jenga tower of disorganization. Anyhow, there were one or two real-world elements, which I merged into the revised Spacecraft in Star Trek article before planting the redirect.

I'm mentioning this particular merge here because 66.108.118.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) undid the redirect. It is an incredibly obscure article and the IP's sole edit -- I suspect it may have been a registered but logged-out user. Prompts to engage in WP:BRD on user page and article talk page were unaddressed, so I'm shooting up a flare here: I'm restoring the redirect and have explained as much on this and the article talk page. Maybe nothing more comes of this, but if it does, input from other members of the wikiproject would be appreciated. You can see the pre-redirect content here. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 7

I've moved 2011's talk-page discussions to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_7. Give a shout if you'd like me to undo it. I didn't see any outstanding issues, i.e. anything lacking resolution. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Starship article ruminations

Hey, folks. So, I've been in one of my more manic Wiki-editing moods of late. But, I'm also banging my head against the keyboard trying to figure out all this Star Trek spaceship-related stuff. I'd appreciate some feedback and your thoughts on a few things. They're all a bit interrelated:

• Spacecraft in Star Trek and Starship Enterprise -- I'm pretty happy with where the Spacecraft article is now/going, and I'm working on a revision of the Enterprise article in userspace. However, the more I work on the latter, the more I feel it's in many ways (too) duplicative of the former, just with an "Enterprise-only" filter applied. (I am planning to add details about the interior design.)
  • I'm worried that my userspace work is shaping up to offer too much of an out-of-universe depiction in reaction to the overwhelmingly in-universe presentation in the current article. What level of in-universe detail is appropriate. Is any kind of in-universe stuff appropriate for this catch-all article, or better in the individual spin-offs?
  • And/or, I'm starting to question whether a "Starship Enterprise" article is really necessary -- would we avoid duplication and still offer sufficient coverage if we had just Spacecraft in Star Trek and separate spin-offs for the NCC-1701, -D, -E and NX-01 (plus other hero ships from the other franchises)? In some ways, the Starship Enterprise article is the "redirect-alternative-to-AfD" target for things like the Enterprise-B and Mirror Universe Enterprises -- but, even their coverage at Starship Enterprise is anemic, and the subjects sufficiently addressed at e.g. the Generations article and/or the Spacecraft article.
• Yes, I omitted the NCC-1701-A as one of the spin-off Enterprise articles in the list above. The more I look at that one, the more I don't think it warrants a separate article from the NCC-1701. From a real-world perspective, there's not a real significant difference between the two; they're the same filming model, serving the same narrative role for the same intrepid crew.
  • So, now I'm thinking about dab titles. They're currently friendly toward folks who know the franchise, and also conveniently short. (I don't see anything in the dab MOS that suggests brevity is a guiding principal, although it might be assumed by its referencing the generic naming conventions, which I didn't look into.) Anyhow, what are folks' thoughts on the following:
    • Merge USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) into USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and rename it USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series and films) <-I don't really like this -- esp. the "and films")
      • Alternatively, it we really look at this from an out-of-universe perspective, perhaps we instead have separate USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series films) articles -- ah, but then does that suggest the 2009 film material get spun out into its own thing?!
    • USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) -> USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
    • USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) -> USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation films)
    • Enterprise (NX-01) -> Enterprise (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Well, that's all for now. Input requested. Yes, I know my tiered array of bullets and array of subjects aren't conducive to lots of replies; please do refactor my comments above if it would aid in communication. --EEMIV (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments to this

• The fair use rationale of File:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg as it is violates WP:NFCC Policy 10c, which requires a separate and specific rationale for each use. I will look into this and fix it as soon as I have a bit more time.
• "And/or, I'm starting to question whether a "Starship Enterprise" article is really necessary -- would we avoid duplication and still offer sufficient coverage if we had just Spacecraft in Star Trek and separate spin-offs for the NCC-1701, -D, -E and NX-01 (plus other hero ships from the other franchises)?"

I think as it is User:EEMIV/Starship Enterprise is not overly long and it would fit into Spacecraft in Star Trek quite well in my opinion.

• "perhaps we instead have separate USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series films) articles"

In my opinion this should only be done, if each of them is really capable of having an article with established notability on their own. I think the better approach is to create one article, perhaps with individual sections for some of the more notable ships (1701, -D, ...), and spun off individual articles only if one of the sections becomes too long and overwhelm the Spacecraft in Star Trek article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the solution for this sort of situation with overlapping articles is WP:Summary style. Have a general article on the ships, where the sections can be summaries of the articles on specific ones, with again, subarticles on the treatment in different works, There is no harm in some duplication: the principle is NOT PAPER; this permits us to write simultaneously at the level of the outsider and the expert. The importance of the ships within the fictional work is imho considerably greater than the RW importance of the filming, We include the RW aspects of fictional aspects, but we need to focus where the interest is. Without the extreme importance of the fiction, the models and so on wouldn't be worth discussing. (There may be some cases where the technical aspects of producing a work are more important than the work itself, but I doubt there are very many.) DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode navboxes

Is there any reason of which I'm not aware why Cbbkr (talk · contribs) would be "standardizing" all Trek episode navboxes by removing the quotation marks from around episode titles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Star_Trek_VOY_S4&curid=28683852&diff=474856199&oldid=465162636)?

Hmm. I think it looks better aesthetically, but I can understand being rankled by the break from MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep the quotes. Episodes of TV always have quotes like other serialized or episodic works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-)notable individual ships

An editor has reverted redirects for two ships: USS Stargazer (Star Trek) and USS Excelsior. The former redirect was in place for a few years, the latter was relatively new. Neither article asserts real-world notability or presents evidence of significant third-party coverage. I doubt either article has significant numbers of watchlisters, so I'm asking for your input here (Stargazer) and here (Excelsior) re. these ships' notability. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing only one comment at the Stargazer talk page supporting redirect, I've restored redirects for both articles. --EEMIV (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delta Flyer

There have been recent redirects of Delta Flyer to Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek#Continuation_on_television, due to notability concerns. It seems to me that this redirect is to an article that doesn't adequately address the Delta Flyer topic and loses a lot of the good-faith content included in the article. I don't quite understand what the notability issue is supposed to be, but perhaps notability can be beefed up, or the article merged into another relevant article in this project, such as Star Trek: Voyager. In the meantime, I'll do some minor cleanup to the article itself. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation DVD

This article appears to have slipped through the cracks. It doesn't even have the Star Trek WikiProject template on its talk page. That said, I can't think of any reason why this should be on the 'pedia. All its encyclopedic information should be covered at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. Are there any other shows that have articles dedicated to their DVD releases? If so, I can't find any, and I would have trouble justifying them as encyclopedic. Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of further opinions, I went ahead and prod'd it. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen other shows merge DVD releases into season pages, of which there are not many for the various Star Trek series. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Another request for input

The same editor mentioned above restoring a few non-notable ships' articles has since restored Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek. Interestingly enough, I wrote most of that article's content -- go figure. Anyhow, it's an amalgamation of in-universe trivia and a lot of non-notable randomness (partially the result of a poorly though-out merge a few years ago). Anyhow, I've posted a reminder about WP:GNG and WP:RS at the editor's talk page, but your input at Talk:Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek#Redirect re. this specific amalgamation would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We could use some more opinions here. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nichelle Nichols' White House photo

Is there any way to ascertain if this photo is a White House product, and therefore in the public domain? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

citations in the lede

In all nine of this project's featured articles (Category:FA-Class Star Trek articles), only one of them—Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country— has a single citation in the lede, and it's still duplicating the citation in the article and infobox. It seems that its our SOP to eschew citations in the lede.

The Manual of Style on the lede section says that since the information in the lede should only be summarizing the already-cited information in the article, "[t]he necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

174.109.211.25 (talk · contribs) deleted over two-thirds of the lede to "Tuvix" two weeks ago, saying "Deleted as original research, please provide references before reverting". I reverted the anon, saying that "the lead is a summarization of the material already cited in the body of the article (not OR), duplicate citing is unnecessary". Today, the same anon reverted me saying "Still OR; again, please provide citations and/or references before reverting and/or undoing - please do not indulge in revert wars, thank you".

Now, despite the anon's inaccurate claim that the information is original research (the info in the lede is attributed to "reliable, published source[s]", and is not "new analysis or synthesis"), WP:LEADCITE does allow for citations in the lede "if necessary" without regard to duplication of citations. However, it's up to a consensus decision as to whether such duplicative citations are necessary. I'm almost comfortable pointing to the precedent of this WikiProject's featured articles as my consensus, but I would appreciate explicit input from the editors here as to whether we, in consensus, feel duplicate citations are needed in the lede if the information is already cited within the body of the article. Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion and offered my opinion on the article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and input, EEMIV. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

use of superscripted ordinals

I've been targeting ordinal numbers not in conformity with WP:MOSNUM. These include superscripted ordinals, which I remove wherever they come up. I've noticed them in quite a few of the Star Trek articles, in particular TNG. I would ask the assembled editors to make note and not use superscript for this purpose going forwards. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:EEMIV

Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits

• Redirects without discussion
• Actions against consensus of discussion
• Subversion of AfD process
• Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process

EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.

Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters#K

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242

Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241

Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace

Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• A "keep" close at AFD does not preclude BOLD merges and redirects as personal editorial decisions. If you disagree with them then per WP:BRD you are welcome to revert them but the discussion on the issue should stay here be discussed at the relevant wikiproject talk page or on the individual article talk pages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

BOLD ignores consensus? These articles, and most contributions to Wikipedia, are made by noobs. There must be transparency. Redirects can be made without discussion, but changing them back requires discussion? There must be procedure. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Format of episode articles

I was reading the article on "Frame of Mind (Star Trek: The Next Generation)" and found that the first paragraph's placing of the episode in context contains a sentence fragment: "The 21st episode of the sixth season." I was about to change this to "It is the 21st episode of the sixth season." It occurred to me, however, that this format might well be repeated, and so it was in the articles for the next two episodes, "Suspicions (Star Trek: The Next Generation)" and "Rightful Heir". I didn't look further.

I assume that the Project would like episode formats to be standard. I suggest, however, that they all adhere to a grammatically correct standard. The current wording will grate on the nerves of anyone who cares about good written English. JamesMLane t c 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek story chronology

I hope I haven't jumped the gun too much here, but I took a look at this template, saw that its contents were nothing but red-links, saw the absolute lack of things linking to it and put in a nomination for speedy deletion giving the reason "not employed in any useful fashion", along with Template:Star Trek stories which is only a redirect pointing to it. If anyone has a mind to save these things, y'all can still put the breaks on the deletion. (I also wonder if I hadn't said anything and they disapeared, would anyone have noticed or cared. I did give apropriste notice to the template creators.) Cbbkr (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bat'leth assistance

Hello, I was pointed in this direction as it was suggested that the project could assist with an article I created from a redirect. The page is the Klingon favourite, the Bat'leth. It has been the subject of a peer review which suggested a few ways to improve it and suggested that the project might be able to help find some extra sources (It's not easy for this one!) and help with the article to maybe lead it to GA status. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuvix review

I've worked on the Tuvix article as such as I can. There're 26 reliable sources, almost 3000 words of prose, and as much information as I could wring from the Internet, magazines, and books upon which I could lay my hands. I'd next like to take the article to WP:FAC, but would love for you guys to take a look at it first. Thanks for your time and attention. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)