Talk:Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Science

were did the bit about the science of star trek and the science of star wars go? i liked that bit! can someone at least point out which revision it was because i cant find it on history81.108.233.59 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

well...can someone!81.108.233.59 (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(sighs) how come no one listens to me in real life AND whenever i say something on the internet? oh well, since im not any use i'll just curl up and die81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

all right dont worry found it! i think we should add those links to this article though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.99.253 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Star Wars vs. Star Trek instead of Star Trek vs. Star Wars?

This is biased since a neutral order would follow the alphabetical order.

A < ... < T ... < W ... < Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.75.5 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is because that is the name of the movie that the article is based on. A compromise was made to reverse the order in the remainder of the sentence to eliminate bias. How is using a movie title as the source biased? Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

guys, post your arguements over who's better either here, or on the main article under Arguements pro-trek arguements get a cookie, pro-wars arguements get a cake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am a jedi (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the previous statements above to realize exactly why your post is a problem. We can't have OR (original research) in this article, so any of the arguments you would like to propose need to be sourced. This is what caused the article to be deleted in the first place. Unfortunately, I felt it was in the articles best interest to undo your edit. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not a problem, if it was OR, as you call it, there would only arguements supporting one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am a jedi (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't add original research. You need reliable sources. You failed to do both in several articles, and you're completely ignoring your warnings. Please try to read WP:NOR and WP:RS, for starters, which has already been left on your talk page more than once. We can't help if you continue to completely ignore everything we tell you. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I propose this article be renamed to a more encyclopedic title. According to our naming conventions, abbreviations such as "vs." should not be used in this context. I propose moving the article to Comparison of Star Wars and Star Trek (which is broader than Rivalry of Star Wars and Star Trek, and for which we have more sources). Thoughts? Skomorokh 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering this article was originally started as the addition of the documentary "Star Wars vs. Star Trek", I don't feel a name change is a valid solution. Once you change the name, it is no longer about the documentary. Turlo Lomon (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The documentary is a separate topic than the rivalry/comparison itself. If the documentary is notable itself, it can have its own separate article. This article is of much broader scope than the documentary. Skomorokh 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would make it: "Comparisons of Star Wars with Star Trek" since we are reporting the many comparisons of the two which others have made, rather than making one ourselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have moved back to Star Wars vs. Star Trek as there was no consensus above for a move away and this title seems the most popular usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• The page was originally about "Could the Enterprise beat the Death Star?" Star Wars vs. Star Trek is as good a title for that as any. --Phirazo 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More websites

What happened to http://www.st-v-sw.net/? That one is good too! Star destroyer is on the side of star wars so shouldn't we have one on the side of star trek? (I haven't looked at the other one there) If no one comes up with a good reason why I will add it to the article.88.108.25.55 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

24th century boy

The article currently states "Star Trek is set in the 24th Century". This is not wholly correct. The original series and a number of films were set in the 23rd (according to some sources) and Enterprise was set in the 22nd; it is the likes of Voyager, Next Generation and DS9 that are placed in the 24th.

I don't have an immediate idea of how to rephrase, although Roddenberry's "somewhere in the future" seems not unattractive if we wish to avoid the kind of nitpicking laid out above. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

removed section

[1] Does a cartoon flopping have anything to do with a movie for another series doing well? They didn't come out at the same time. Listing things that happened years apart, makes no sense at all. Saying that after Star Wars was successful, another studio decided they needed a space movie, and got Star Trek produced for that, makes sense. I saw a documentary mentioning that. But that wouldn't be a comparison though. Saying that some Star Trek movies failed because Star Wars was better, does not make any sense at all. Dream Focus 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just some editor's opinion. Star Wars appeals to a somewhat different audience. It's important to keep in mind that Star Trek, from the very beginning, had a "cult" following. That's why it only lasted 2 seasons plus a begrudging third season after a letter-writing campaign. Star Wars, being largely action-adventure, has a broader appeal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

This page is going to disappear in a heartbeat. As it stands, this page is also incorrect. The people conducting the debate call it "Star Trek vs Star Wars". So a page with the words reversed is using the incorrect name. And of course there is the fact that by the last AFD, there is zero notability here. A single produced film certainly doesn't qualify. Alyeska 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then nominate it. An admin said it could be recreated, and it is sourced. The reason for the order of Star Wars vs. Star Trek is because every single legitimate source calls it that. Forbes is not a trivial reference, when an entire article is talking about it. Also, the same for a movie. Turlo Lomon 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So when a news source calls any warship a Battleship and any tracked vehicle a tank, we take them as being accurate. Talk to people involved in the debate and you will fast learn that it is STvsSW. SWvsST is absolutely inaccurate, that is not the name. Alyeska 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is when it becomes OR. Three verifiable sources were found to establish notability. All three referred to the subject as SWvST. The movie title also refers to this. I created redirects from all possible variations of the title. I see that someone has added 3 links, and I will check those out when I can for added material, but remember, I am trying to establish a notabile subject as a valid Wikipedia entry. To do so, we have to follow policy. I am not your enemy. Turlo Lomon 03:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So the incorrect news articles are more reputable then the people involved in the source of the articles. Wonderful. That just proves Wikipedia is fatally flawed. Knowingly using incorrect information. Alyeska 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, then find sources. So far, someone has added 3 additional sources. Guess what. SWvST was used at the first one I looked at. If you want me to start taking you seriously, then supply sources. Right now, all I have is what you tell me, and that is why the last FIVE AfDs occurred. Because people started on OR instead of references. Fact: The movie is called SWvST. Fact: Forbes referred to the debate as SWvST. What facts can you supply? Turlo Lomon 06:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition Made I added your suggested feedback, once I found sources. There is no reason to have such a hostile tone with me. I didn't have to recreate an article I have no vested interest in. Turlo Lomon 07:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One last thing... Your statement "you will fast learn that it is STvsSW" is clearly biased, as the pro-Trek sites all seem to call the debate by that title, just as the pro-Wars sites all refer to it as SWvST. Bias and OR is what got the last article deleted. I am trying to give a valid topic an entry, and so far, you have been nothing but negative with me because I chose a NPOV instead of your side? Turlo Lomon 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not just 'pro-Trek sites'. st-v-sw.net, alt.startrek.vs.starwars, the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia, and Wookieepedia are all counter examples that list Star Trek first. So far the only sites I have seen that list Star Wars are pro SW egofests.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a link to the WP:DRV that overturned the prior AFDs on this article/topic? Thanks. Postdlf 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. It didn't overturn the prior AFDs so much as it allowed for a reboot that would avoid the OR problems in the original. Postdlf 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the prior AFDs and VFDs on the previous incarnation of this article (there were, if I recall correctly, 4-5 in all) failed. There is no room for question as to the notability of the topic (it is by Wikipedia standards) or the existence of reliable sources providing material to recycle into tertiary sources (not all of which are currently cited by the article); it is only on the thin grounds that the article appeared to contain some original research that the deletion was endorsed rather than overturned in a contested DRV. Balancer 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody who has made any comment on this topic, aside from Turlo, is hereby docked 50 IQ points. This includes myself, as I feel slightly stupider for having read this childish fanboy tripe. Get a life you nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.58.104.162 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I read through all this and now I cannot remember how to feed myself. Not good. MitchFX1 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• N The article was not deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

biased?

The Star Wars tech has been commended by scientists such as Stephen Hawking and considered possible, while most of the Trek gadgets are fantasizes. In Star Wars, many of the realistic situations, such as the military, are truly believable, like the Star Destroyer operation, in Star Trek, the crew of the Enterprise utilizes many unnecesary items for the military operations development, such as bars and furnitures. Also, in Star Wars there is a more adult level in matters such as politics, which in Star Trek are missing.[2]

Declaration of Interest: I am not a ST fan nor a SW fan. I only watched ep 4~6 of SW and 1 ST movie(along with 2~3 random eps)

I must state that the above quoted is quite biased. Hawking at least jokingly stated he is working on the warp drive of ST and Physicist like Michio Kaku often quoted ST techs as possible and not dreams as in Physics of the Impossible, as quoted by Discovery Channel Magazine.(see Physics and Star Trek source I have added quite long ago) Also, simple search on the topic gives more sources like The Physics of Star Trek (with Hawking writing the foreword) and Alcubierre drive. I see a ref at the end, but nothing of this paragraph about SW had realistic situation and ST with unneccessay items came out of the ref, not even adult level and politics came from the ref. I am removing this part for the sake of bad referencing. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed after I written the above, this whole badly written paragraph was only recently added in, by IPs diffs I know I am not AGF, but this seems very much like vandalism to me. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be afraid of removing anything that's not reliably sourced. This article has been of variable quality over the years (including being deleted once) and has a tendency to gradually degenerate into an extension of the fan debate if not carefully monitored. EyeSerene^talk 10:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I should probably mention that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia (the "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"; WP:VAND). This shouldn't be confused with simple inexperience or ignorance of how we work :) EyeSerene^talk 10:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

I think its very unfair to compare Star Wars to Star Trek because they are totally different. Star Trek is placed in adventures in space with people and culture from Earth, while Star Wars has a muche more majestic, adult and operistic style in the development of a story in which a circle is opened and closed. Star Wars has always counted on an element of "Great History" in which are based most of the stories developed on it. We have to remember that Star Wars is not just the movies and that Star Trek is not only the TV series. Both science fiction franchises have been extremely expanded (more Star Wars than Star Trek), and on their very heart—specially n Star Wars'—it is reached the level of a universe. Also, there is a part in the article where it is stated that The Clone Wars Movie did not reach the grossing of most recent Star Trek movie. In this case, I think its pretty obvious and pretty intentional that The Clone Wars Movie was not meant to be a blockbuster, and that its budget was much lower than Star Trek's. If you want to comparse blockbusters, then compare Star Trek's recent movie with latest Star Wars Episode (Revenge of the Sith), which of course, would crush Star Trek in highest grossing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.24.16.1 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek is basically what we would like to be, or to become, and has a much more serious undertone; Star Wars is a fantasy/adventure thing like Robin Hood or King Arthur. Comparing the two is like trying to compare The Day the Earth Stood Still with E.T. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, pal. The 'serious undertone' you say Star Trek has its everything but new. The Star Wars Franchise does not give us an 'alternative' to stop living like this or to pass to an "Evolution Time"; it is a universe created from the elements of the world we live in but expanded and carefully developed enough to reach the trait of being another world itself. I don't see anything really impressing in Star Trek; I'm not against it, but in my opinion it just isn't like Star Wars, which is much more serious. When you state Star Wars is fantasy, I think its obvious it is space opera. Comparing Star Trek to Star Wars would be like comparing Harry Potter to The Lord of the Rings. Also, you didn't say anything about the box office commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.24.16.1 (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek has always been a logical extension of what we are, or would like to be. Star Wars is a fantasy along the lines of Robin Hood or King Arthur. Seems to me I said that already. There's nothing particularly serious about Star Wars. Space Opera, yes. Truly serious, no. A colleague of mine once called it "eye candy". That summarizes it pretty well. Regarding box office, Star Trek was originally and always has been kind of a large scale "cult following". Star Wars, with its familiar action/adventure movie premises (King Arthur in space, basically) appeals to a much broader audience. That's always been the case. The amount of money a film rakes in doesn't make it "better" than another film, just "more popular". I don't buy the Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings comparison. It's more like Star Trek is The Hunt for Red October and Star Wars is Captain Blood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, this article is why i didn't give you any money.

It's shit like this that keeps people from taking wikipedia seriously.Grabba (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your issue with this article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should post this complaint on his talk page. You could also read the AFD discussion linked to at the top of this talk page, and read why it was kept by a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison

It's just ridicoulous to compare them, they are completely different. The article is purely subjective, you can't take it seriously. I can remember when it states that "Star Wars science is nonsense": How could you say that? When Star Wars ships use technology 100% accurate: ionic engines, laser fire, and a spectacular and brilliant control of inertia. Star Trek's ships look like toys, and everything seems luxury, while in Star Wars it all has a purpose and looks real. Besides, Star Trek is filled with science fiction clichés, while Star Wars goes beyond that and treats human aspects such as the balance of rights, the politics, the ways of democracy, the possibility of a real pan-galactic government, mythic and mystic, the deep knowledge of war material, and a loooooooooot more believable, adult, mature and interesting prospect. When you see any Star Wars film, read any book or comic, you realize that there is an entire universe out there that can be explored in our imagination. When you see a Star Trek episode or film, you can only think on... "What the hell is this?" It's just preposterous, and the article deserves nothing but complete jest and ignorance. Simply, if it were for both franchises' depiction of what is a good story, the result would be like comparing Niccoló Machiavelli (Star Wars) to the Power Rangers (Trek). Absurd, case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.87.220 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Star Wars science is nonsense. Try to explain how a lightsaber works! How can you make light stop in mid air? And how do you create the necessary power source to melt metal doors in the size of a hand? Another example is a scene where the guys walk around on an asteroid - without pressure suits, but with breathing masks - of course without oxygen cans!

On the other hand Star Trek science is also to a big part nonsense. Like beaming for example. Quantum physics makes it impossible to measure speed, position, spin and whatever of an atom. And without being able to measure the atom composition of a human, you cannot load the data into a computer. And without that there is no way to make a particle ray (which fires through the atmosphere of a planet without being harmed by that) which can built that human atom by atom kilometers away.

Both franchises have a way to "trick" relativity for being faster than light: hyperspace and warp travel respectively. None of them stands on solid feet if you look at them from what we know about physics today. It may be possible that hyperspace is a kind of extremely folded dimension under the 4 perceivable ones. But how could you get a spaceship travel through it? Warp travel works by bending space. And Star Trek tells us that can be done by investing the engery that a 5 m high cylinder of 1.5 m diameter can produce (the warp core).

Star Trek also sometimes (!) plays with time travel. Not that all that is simply impossible, star trek also contradicts itself in different episodes/movies. Once the time has the character of a continuous line on which you can travel back and forth. The other time it is more like a tree, and every decision of a human creates a new timeline.

But apart from all that, both also show realistic science fiction. Take for example very advanced robots (C3PO and Data). What's to say against their portrayal? I think one day there will be robots like them. Then Star Trek had these self-opening doors long before they were invented. Now every supermarket has them. Star Wars had starships which start and land like a plane (instead of like a multistage rocket) and now there is a spaceship which is carried up by a plane and then starts into space and lands like a plane (SpaceShipOne). Both Star Trek and Wars showed small communication devices not unlike our cell phones long before they were invented. Of course it is just extrapolated the current technology (primitive robots and computers, airplanes, walkie-talkies,...) and made it more efficient, smaller, faster and simply more able. But exactly that is basic science fiction. Now you go a step ahead and invent aliens with technology that is as unlike to ours as possible (I have to admit both Trek and Wars fail doing so. The majority of their aliens are very similar to us both in biology and technology as well as politics and overall behavior).

My conclusion: It is unfair to call Star Wars' science nonsense, but Star Trek's not. But it is right. Apart from that one also has to say that not all the sciene in Star Wars or Star Trek is nonsense, and some of it is very good fictional science. (So both franchises deserve to be called science fiction although Star Wars has a lot of fantasy elements, too.)--TeakHoken91.47.81.130 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"It's just ridiculous to compare them, they are completely different."
From a devoted follower of both franchise, amen to that (when you take away the spaceships and aliens, Star Trek is a Western, Star Wars a WWII epic with medieval fairy tale elements mixed in) - I'd never be the dual fan that I am if they really were as similar as some people think.--Ten-pint (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The original purpose of the article was to document the rivalry between the two franchises rather than to actually make the comparisons itself. This seems to have wandered a bit, which unfortunately will lead to problems of the sort noted above (for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, see our "no original research" policy for an explanation of why this is a problem). EyeSerene^talk 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to delete this article or severely restrict its editability, because I'm not entirely sure you could ever really accomplish that.--Ten-pint (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro

This article needs an actual intro, not the mish-mash of sentences that currently serve as an intro.76.246.60.60 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual comparisons lacking

This article should include the estimated gross revenue of each franchise, plus what might be an interesting comparison is the amount of content in hours for each. Starwars is notably higher grossing in spite of having much less sheer hours of Film/TV footage and far fewer stories, places & characters.

This presents an interesting contrast where one was more financially rewarding while the other was a more fertile ground for writing and creativity to take it beyond its first incarnation. One could also look at the relative failure of the last three films vs the first three, the lack of interest in the games etc, and how it proved StarWars while more profitable did not have much value beyond its initial "supernova" of success that really eclipsed anything done since, whereas in Star Trek, the most recent film was by far the most profitable of all of them. Mrrealtime (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral?

This article's neutrality is not present in any of its paragraphs. It favor a lot Star Trek and presents many of its characteristics but does not with Star Wars. I'm not a SW fan, but I'm sure the Star Wars technology has been commended by scientists as the Star Trek tech has. It even states that Star Trek has been highest-grossing that Star Wars, putting the example of The Clone Wars Film, that is absolute not true, all SW episodes are of the highest-grossings films ever in Blockbuster, and Star Trek 2009 film barely could pay the budget. I've seen very deep both franchises, and remember Star Wars is a totally created Universe, while Star Trek is just a story based on the "Earth legacy", even linked to the US. Star Wars presents a much more adult leven in the consolidation of a pan-galactic civilization, which in many times looks itself into wars because of other organizations that wish to secede from it or destroy it. In the section when says "schawsbucking style, and Trek heroes are scientists and intelects", the SW Expanded Universe is extremely large, and there are also many scientists and intellects on it. That is another example of what this article just doesn't state because the people who wrote it are favoring Trek and just know the SW basics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.26.216.98 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you feel the article seems to favour Star Trek over Star Wars, and you make some good points, but Wikipedia's editing policies mean that we are restricted to using only sources that actually discuss the "ST vs SW" fan debate and aren't allowed to add our own opinions to the article. This means that if the sources themselves are unbalanced the article will be too - but that doesn't mean the article isn't neutral. To be honest it's not an easy subject to write about as there aren't that many reliable sources around that actually go into the fan debate in detail, but if you know of any please feel free to mention them here (or, if you like, write them up in the article yourself). Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars and Star Trek are both derivative. The galactic empire and its rebellions are also "Earth legacy" models, with more than a small touch of the King Arthur legends thrown in. It's probably hard to find sources on comparisons because they are different styles of filmmaking. While they are both broadly grouped under Action/Adventure/SciFi/Fantasy, the Star Trek genre has always taken itself much more seriously, and is in some sense realistic, whereas Star Wars is "eye candy". Comparing the two is a little like trying to compare Fort Apache with Support Your Local Sheriff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know some sources, I'll list them here when I have them. To Baseball Bugs, I state again that one important difference in the story is that Star Wars History develops itself in the feature of a possible civilization so advanced that is to the intergalactic point, while Star Trek actually focuses on the centuries after Earth, but is pretty much the same as the civilizations of present day. The most important thing that differences Wars from Trek is that it is a universe created from nowhere, while based of course in all the concepts of the growing civilizations. I would say, based on this, that comparing both of them, albeit considerable and being an interesting subjects to fans and critics alike, is like comparing Narnia—in the case of Trek based as the future of the world we live in—to The Lord of the Rings, in the Wars role, because both are fantasy and totally created universes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.87.218 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Originally the article was solely about the usenet-based fan debate. See here for the version that was put in place after the last deletion review; such was the totality of sourced content once the reams of fancruft and OR that previously existed had been removed.

Obviously more sources have arisen since, but the article scope seems to have crept as well. This is fine as long as the sources used reflect the scope of the article (ie actually discuss the comparison itself). However, I'm concerned that the article may once again be drifting towards inviting original research. I wonder if a name change to something like "Rivalry between Star Trek and Star Wars" might be more helpful in defining its scope? EyeSerene^talk 07:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I must state that the IP started the argument here is hardly not a SW fan, from the history of the article, it is very likely to be the same person who added in the very vandalism like material about SW being far superior than ST in its reality of technology I mentioned in the above section. Again, for crying out loud, I am not AGFing but it is very suspicious since the 3 of the 4 IPs started with 186.2X except for one as 201, except for the 186.24 that made the least edit(changing scientist from critics only), all of them including 186.26.216.98 is from the same owner: Telecomunicaciones MOVILNET. and worse still, all the 186 and 201 IP ranges are from the same internet extension *.ve. The claim of not being neutral without sources is really out of the question here. Many evidences point to the 186.2X IP being a SW fan and is willing to do anything to show SW is superior to ST(including the starting post here) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 12:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted by an IP above, trying to compare these two is a dubious proposition. It's like trying to compare The Hunt for Red October with Captain Blood. It really doesn't work. Now, if the original premise was over a "rivalry" between the fan bases, as stated by another editor (and which the OP is hinting at), then you might have something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If it comes to the title, why not just use Star Wars and Star Trek or Star Trek and Star Wars? Anyway, I am just pointing out that the IP user 186.26.216.98 may not be so neutral in position to start with, with evidences pointing to it being the one possibly added in unsourced, biased and fake information(faking it being sourced by copying and placing a source that does not support the claim) to the article praising SW but against ST. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not kosher, for sure. If it's really supposed to be about a rivalry, there are plenty of sports articles that talk about rivalries, such as Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, with a redirect called Red Sox-Yankees rivalry, so the same could be done here if that would make more sense. This contrasts with an article comparing the two types of Rugby football, or cricket vs. baseball, which aren't about rivalries, but merely explanations of similarities and differences in the rules of those games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the essential difference. An article documenting the rivalry, which was the original intent of this article, can be satisfactorily sourced. An article comparing the two franchises however is likely to be nothing but editor opinion and OR (and lead to the sort of fan debate we see in places on this page). EyeSerene^talk 14:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe the article needs a clearer title, or else needs to be dumped as having no encyclopedic value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (pragmatically probably the first option). It's been to VfD/AfD six times plus had one deletion review, and been recreated once after being deleted. Since it seems we're stuck with it we might as well try to make it as encyclopedic as possible, and I guess that starts with selecting a title that properly reflects the intended article scope :) EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. I placed a neutrality tag. This article refers to sources that biasedly favor Star Trek and try to discredit the technology of Star Wars. Any reference to discredit the obvious pseudoscience of Star trek will be mercilessly vandalized by Trekkies. I think we need some references on how Star trek promotes pseuodoscience. I know we can do it by just watching it but to meet Wikipedia's standards we'll need to link the references. But in any case the POV tag is staying there until the article can be factualized instead of being cluttered with biased and unreliable sources which have no evidence.-Taeyebaar (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sharing terminology

Star Wars uses some of the terminology of Star Trek: For example in The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader says "set your phasers to stunt mode" in the scene when they plan on attacking the Millennium Falcon. Also during the battle scenes terms such as "evasive action", "deflector shields", etc, are used, which are know for their usage in the Original Star Trek series.--Milosppf (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

They don't call them phasers. I don't know if he ever said set them to stun mode. Should be a transcript online to search around though. And evasive action and deflector shields are used in other science fiction series, even before Star Trek existed. Dream Focus 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

“ VADER: Good. Prepare the boarding party and set for your weapons for

stun.

”

In "stunt mode," does a phaser do a barrel roll? Technotom2001 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I search a transcript and "phaser" wasn't said anywhere at all. Dream Focus 23:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of section,

I removed this section because honestly to my mind this is just random criticism of both franchises not comparisons of the two.

Criticism of both franchises[edit source | editbeta] Star Wars has been repeatedly criticized by various individuals for what they see as its violent nature and its mythical portrayal as "a contradiction of religious values".[7][8] In a two page essay Steve Johnson, a contributor for the Chicago Tribune, gave his perception that "Star Wars is overrated".[9] A guest critic on Decent Films Guide raised many issues that he feels that Star Wars poses, especially around its growing commerce as well as other issues regarding morality and violence.[10] Star Trek has been criticized by academics, journalists, critics and fans for its promotion of pseudoscience.[11][12][13][14][15] David Kushner is a journalist and author who has written for various publications, including the New York Times. He has been critical of the use of pseudoscience in Hollywood and criticized Star Trek for this reason.[16]

I was reverted by Nadirali because "Criticism of both franchises is relevant to include all viewpoints. The critics were contributors for major news outlets in America, so it's valid and also mentioned in the article) (undo | thank)"

I was hoping to get some input from others to see if it was just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfredtheforth (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Stat Wars

Star Wars has been repeatedly criticized by various people for what they see as its violent nature and its mythical portrayal as "a contradiction of religious values".

According to the sources, these people where all members of Christian groups, so maybe it should be changed to:

Star Wars has been repeatedly criticized by Christian groups for what they see as its violent nature and its mythical portrayal as "a contradiction of religious values". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBurns (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Current state

I checked on this article of out interest as I last edited it when it was up for deletion some years ago. I found that the content had degraded somewhat. There was overuse of templates, the content was in bullet points (the WP:MOS says "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs", also see WP:PROSE), the text was bitty and had lost flow, some referenced content had been lost, and some of the content was really original research, i.e. was not based on sources comparing the two but was editors' own comparisons, e.g. the "Criticisms of both franchises" section (which could expand indefinitely and has nothing to do with a direct comparison of the two) and the "Future" section, which is not relevant to the topic. Some of the content was also in the wrong section, e.g. people who have worked on each is not a "similarity". A section title of "Comic relief" is not appropriate and is really trivia - we should avoid sections on trivia (see WP:TRIVIA). The article still needs work, and that means focussing on finding reliable sources that directly compare the two and avoiding making our own comparisons or removing commentary we don't ourselves agree with. Fences&Windows 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I see someone in 2013 was unhappy with the sources so tagged the article as POV, and then several sources were removed in 2014 with the comment "removing POV 'sources' and commentary; refurbishing article to full encyclopedic standard (trust me)". However, that's not how WP:NPOV works. We work from the sources and what they say and not our own ideas of what would be a "neutral" comparison. We don't need equal numbers of pro-Star Trek and pro-Star Wars sources, we just find what sources we can. a number of sources is not the right approach. If these sources could be better presented that's fine, but don't just excise them all:

• http://www.wired.com/2009/08/great-geek-debates-star-trek-vs-star-wars/
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tS2Pasjx0igC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/technology/game-theory-star-wars-world-with-a-sense-of-humor.html
• http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_13518101
• http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/review/822/Star+Wars+Vs+Star+Trek

By the way, I have no dog in this fight other than wanting to see a decent article about this comparison. I favour neither Star Wars nor Star Trek over each other. Everyone needs to rein in their personal feelings about the two franchises and the sources. Fences&Windows 21:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Another thought - the article began as "Star Trek vs Star Wars" was an account of the rivalry between fans. I don't want a return to those days, it was right to refocus the article. But that said, a mention of the rivalry using reliable sources would seem appropriate. It never seems to die. Fences&Windows 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was degraded before I edited it. It was all condensed into a single essay and needed to be separated as advised under WP:CLUTTER and the whole message was "Star Trek is better than Star Wars". How can it have been better than when the article was just all pro-Trek. I never claimed we need to equal the numbers of pro-anything, however the article in the state that it is, it consists of entirely pro-trek commentaries, most of them questionable and clearly not WP:NPOV. Instead of fan opinions on the subject, we now have the personal opinions of others who like ST better than SW which is by no means an improvement.-Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

* http://www.wired.com/2009/08/great-geek-debates-star-trek-vs-star-wars/

• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tS2Pasjx0igC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/technology/game-theory-star-wars-world-with-a-sense-of-humor.html
• http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_13518101

*http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/review/822/Star+Wars+Vs+Star+Trek

The first and last are not acceptable. I think the bottom lines of the linked article pretty much speaks for itself. The last link is a documentary that I saw online a few years back and does not directly compare the two. It only tracks the history of the two franchises back and fourth. The only "comparison" is the beginning which shows ST fans trolling SW fans, so it's not really a comparison. The other three links need to be re-examined if they are appropriate or not. I unfortunately will be held up for ten days at the most so I might not be as active during that duration.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources definitely need to be taken into account when examining these sources.-Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the source really reliable? If so OK, but I'll warn you, I've also got sources with opposite opinions, and yes they do compare the two. I'll need a few more weeks to recover them, though, so we can have a balanced article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere, but I need to underline that you can't rule out Wired's article as a source because you don't like the conclusion they draw! That's the whole point of WP:NPOV, and indeed of the Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources essay: sources do not need to be neutral. Sources are allowed to express opinions and to editorialize; in articles, we as editors are not allowed to do so. We may need to better frame the sources than I did before to avoid making their opinions seem like the "Wikipedia line". The way to improve the sourcing is to find further sources and include them regardless of what side they take. Fences&Windows 20:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've posted at the relevant WikiProjects to ask for help with editing. Fences&Windows 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the article following on from the WikiProject post, I've got to say that this is an interesting opportunity to bring together a genuinely interesting discussion of the two "Star"'s. One thing I think that the background has to expand upon is just how uniquely linked the two actually are - from working up articles on two unproduced Star Trek films from the late 1970s (Star Trek: The God Thing and Star Trek: Planet of the Titans), it's clear that Star Trek made it easier for Star Wars to get into production (and there's even a source to say that George Lucas wanted to buy the Trek rights before he worked on Wars) and then Wars prevented Trek from going into cinemas due to the opinions of some rather dumb Paramount executives. Because science fiction fans wouldn't want to see two different science fiction films. Yeah, right. Morons. Anyway... there will be a fair few neutral book sources comparing the two on a variety of subjects, particularly if anyone has Questia access you'll be able to find them (mine has lapsed). But I'm happy to take a look at the background section if you'd like. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the UAE filming section - Is it too trivial?

I put the mention that two movies of this franchise are filmed in the United Arab Emirates, but feel it sounds a bit trivial. Anyone else feel that? It's OK to remove that mention if people see it as trivia.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net

Michael Wong's stardestroyer.net is a self-published fan site (or self-maintained; he hasn't published/updated in over 10 years) and, per per our sourcing content guidelines, isn't appropriate for inclusion/retention here. Wong does not appear in any third-party sources I could find as identified as an expert on Star Wars, Star Trek, franchise/world creation. His fandom is pretty cool, and I'd love to buy his URL, but it simply doesn't warrant inclusion here. I've removed the content cited to his web site. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV:, he has cited his commentaries on other publications including a book by Lawrence Kraus called The Physics of Star Trek. Unlike these newspaper "sources" he is basing his claims on something (which are reliable sources); whereas the newspaper "sources" are blank statements not basing their claims on anything, which questions them being reliably sourced at all. Wong's claims are also backed up by academics in book sources I provided. So this is a balance. The fact that a source is not updated is not relevant.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to remove the citations to Wong's fan site and cite directly to the reliable third-party sources that state his claims. Simply stating "other sites say the same things Wong does" is insufficient, especially since the one site I can check (at cracked.com) doesn't actually cite Michael Wong's stardestroyer.net as the origin for its observations. --EEMIV (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say "other sites say as Wong does" I say he cites his work. That fact that he cross references his work can be a balance to these empty claims not cited on anything, making them questionable sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I can contact the University of Waterloo for information on their 1995 graduates (which Wong claims to be one of) for a link. Because I added the better source needed tag as himself claiming to be a graduate is WP:PS.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: Or if you want, I'll remove the whole section all together. Aside from the books, most of the rest of the section consists unreliable sources or indirect sections. We can just wait till we find something reliable. I'll leave it up to you. Since I'm open to either and you make a decision we can have a consensus here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is weak enough (again) as it is that removing the section seems just fine. My underlying point, though, about sourcing is that Wong himself isn't a compelling reliable source; instead, those sources of critiques and arguments would have to be cited to a source that is. So, if Lawrence Krauss wants to cite Wong's arguments, that's fine -- but, we cite the Krauss article/book. --EEMIV (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor EEMIV:, I'm going to be restoring that section but with other commentaries that are cross-referenced, even if they overall favor Star Trek more. Give me a few days.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

...okay. I'm anxious about this article again devolving into WP:OR laden with poor sources. We'll see what you generate, I guess. --EEMIV (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Saving links for later use in the article

[2] [3] in case I loose them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Space opera

The cited definition of space opera in the current article seems rather far-fetched to me: "Star Wars mainly belongs to the space opera subgenre of science fiction that was inspired by works such as Beowulf and King Arthur, and the origins of other mythology and world religions as well as ancient and medieval history."

The definition of the genre cited in its article is simply "colorful, dramatic, large-scale science fiction adventure, competently and sometimes beautifully written, usually focused on a sympathetic, heroic central character and plot action, and usually set in the relatively distant future, and in space or on other worlds, characteristically optimistic in tone. It often deals with war, piracy, military virtues, and very large-scale action, large stakes."

Where do Arthurian fiction, chivalric romance, and epic poetry even fit as literary antecedents for the genre? They too deal with war and heroic characters. But they tend to take place in the past (real or imagined) and are often far from optimistic in tone. The Epic of Gilgamesh features a failed quest for immortality, The Iliad mostly deals with death in the battlefield, the Odyssey features Odysseus losing all his comrades and wealth before returning to Homer's Ithaca and then turns into a revenge tale (and a rather gory one at that), Beowulf ends with the death and funeral pyre of the title character, Le Morte d'Arthur covers the deaths of Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot, etc. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the cited documentary does not make the claim calling SW "mainly" belongs to the space opera genre. I'm fairly certain it doesn't even use the phrase "space opera," but I'd have to triple-check. --EEMIV (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick:@EEMIV: [4] 8:45-8:50 Gary Kurtz clearly says Space Opera. Start watching also from 9:15 and 10:20.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not questioning that. I am questioning the definition of space opera given in this article. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of Space Opera is as you quoted it. Star Wars being set mainly or entirely in outer space is a space opera. There's an interview from Mark Hamill that also repeats the King Arthur influence.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

[5]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition that I use derives from the sources in the space opera article. This article seems to ignore it and trace the origin of the genre to Arthurian fiction. Somehow, I do not see the connection. Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jesus

Could we have a source about the Jesus analogy in Star Wars? Anakin Skywalker goes through a character arc of attaining maturity, facing trauma, getting corrupted, and eventually finding redemption. I thought he was a more complex character than Jesus, who, despite depicted as a human, has no apparent human flaw. Jesus always seemed one-dimensional to me. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?

"The two franchises have many similarities, including the word 'Star' in their respective titles" Hmm Australia and Austria have many similarities, including the letters AUST Dainamo (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Dainamo, I've fixed it to the version I had originally posted, which I think makes more sense. I don't know who changed it to this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

over extensive intro

I find the recent additions to the intro belong in various sections of the article. That being mentioned I will paste it here for the person or people to divide it in the appropriate sections where they belong instead of the intro. I cannot do it as I don't have the time. Anyone familiar with the article's current structure and content will agree with me on this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Put these in the various sections where they belong

There are some signs that the same people have essentially watched both, simply focusing on one when its producing more material. For example, during the Star Wars dry period between Return of the Jedi and the Phantom Menace, almost 15 years, many succumbed to watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. As the Star Trek television producers got squeezed like a lemon for one show after another and the new Star Wars films hit, those people would find it easy to find few hours to watch Lucas make another trilogy.

However, Star Wars has much less run-time compared to the Star Trek franchise which has over 513 hours not counting the movies or the animated series whereas Star Wars films add up to 17 hours 40 minutes. Star Trek has been praised as the greatest franchise binge watch; 726 episode and 12 movies equates to roughly 23 days of continuous viewing One comparison between the two yields the same result, that they not only share a common fan base but even shared actors and special effects companies. Industrial Light & Magic produced many of the effects for both content franchises. Lucas described Star Wars as standing on the shoulders of Star Trek. In particular, he praised the existing Star Trek fan-base as being ready for something like Star Wars and appreciating its visuals and science fiction narrative. Gary Kurtz has said that Star Trek was an important inspiration for Star Wars. On the other hand Star Wars has been quite profitable, earning perhaps 40 billion compared to Star Trek's 10 billion by the mid-2010s for total revenue.

Images

Are the images in the critique and commentary sections relevant at all? I'm tempted to remove them but would like additional opinions.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Why dont we create a new section for cultural impact of both franchises and put these pictures there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A cultural impact section would interesting and be a better fit probably. Starspotter (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on financial comparisons

I placed the update tag there because The Last Jedi is not included there. Should I remove it as The Last Jedi is still playing? Should we wait until it's final cinematic screening and then put it or is it OK to put it now? I'm not sure how this works. Please feel free to explain it here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We should wait until it's screening is over Timur9008 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 27, 2018 (UTC)

To editor Timur9008:, you mean wait until theaters stop playing it? What about DVD sales? Are those counted too?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i meant until theaters stop playing it. Not sure about DVD sales Timur9008 (talk) 20:05, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

To editor Timur9008:, then let's wait until DVD sales commerce. Once that is done the financial comparisons section can be updated.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor Timur9008:, would you consider adding the television films Ewoks: Caravan of Courage and Ewoks: Battle for Endor to the financial comparisons table? Just a suggestion.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Those don't have box office mentioned last i checked. Timur9008 (talk) 9:21, May 28, 2018 (UTC)

To editor Timur9008:, i thought so. However they were released in cinema in parts of Europe, though i don't know how much they made. If I found out, would it be suitable? I won't insist on it. Just wondering.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It has to be based on global revenue, made from box office, not just one part of the globe(Europe).(Timur9008 (talk) 21:23, June 8, 2018 (UTC).

Delete

I thought Wikipedia had a policy against joke articles? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Have you seen this one? It's a hoot!

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Although Star Trek is clearly superior to Star Wars it is important to note why."

Is this a reasonable statement? According to what criteria?

I mention this because given the subject matter (and the passionate views of fans of both franchises) it's clearly inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkmonkey (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)