Talk:Star Trek/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Theme music lyrics

I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)

Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin

someone's added them to Star Trek The Original Series. Seems they're not by GR. Another mystery solved at WIkipedia! -- Tarquin
Roddenberry did write them so that he would receive half of the music royalties, even though they would never be sung. This is documented in Solow and Justman's "Inside Star Trek". (Snopes has a page on this: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/trek1.htm ) -- Arteitle

The Klingons: Asian-Look-Alike

"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003

Reset Button - term coined by some Trekkies to describe disturbance of time stream continuity." Isn't wikipedia supposed to be edited for better readability?
Also, "'"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features.' Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. " In The Original Series, Klingons did look Asian. Tjdw 01:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
They always looked like mongols-in-space to me, which I think was the intention. Roddenberry long claimed that they always were meant to look like the did in the films and in TNG, but they didn't have the budget in the 60s to show them that way. But since Roddenberry wasn't closely involved with the series when they were created (Gene Coon was in charge by that point, and he even wrote "Errand of Mercy"), and he was never one to shy away from taking credit for anything he could possibly take credit for, I've never really believed him. (I always thought the bumpy-head Klingons looked pretty stupid, anyway.) -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Klingons were always supposed to have a sort of Mongolian look to them, especially in the original series. Trek made a habit, for good or ill, of creating alien races with strong parallels to Earth cultures in various degrees. The Romulans, for example, were clearly taken straight from the ancient Roman Empire. The Klingons were supposed to be Communist analogues in their conflict with the Federation, but were also apparently intended to be something like the invading Mongolian hordes in some respects. I can't comment too directly on the original intentions of the writers or makeup artists, but that's how I've always perceived them. -- MinutiaeMan 14:57, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
The Original series Klingons resemble Asians in the 30's pulp stereotype sense, i.e. Ming the Merciless - greasy-faced schemers. Bob McDob 02:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Romances of the captains

"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."

Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

LOL! True... There was actually a Futurama episode like that, actually featuring the Star Trek crew, and Kirk was making out and shirt ripped. --Menchi 10:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Where no fan has gone before", production series 4. Paul Weaver 20:33, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is something of a myth, since if you count it up (which I was once geeky enough to do), even stretching a few episodes a lo-o-ong way, only about 1/3 of the episodes end up with Kirk getting the girl. But, of course, it's more fun to perpetuate the myth. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Maybe Kirk isn't particularly sex-stuffed when compared to real life people, but when I compare Kirk to Archer, Sisko, Janeway and Picard just from memory, Kirk seems to get the most. The rest get like...one romantic situation per season! Of course one can say Picard is too old and too wise to have any sex drive left... --Menchi 04:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kirk's Lineage

Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.

-- Jordan

Well, considering 'european-american' is a euphemism for 'white', i guess so... Of course, Shatner claims Kirk is Jewish. Morwen 10:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, I think Kirk says he's from Iowa (he "only works in outer space").
That is correct. --mav

Capt. April

Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:

April (a precursor captian to Kirk)

Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen

Truth. Captain Robert Aprils was captain of the NCC-1701 before Christopher Pike, who preceded Kirk. --General Wesc
See also: Starship Enterprise. --Menchi 02:06, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The basis for this is a single episode of the animated series, but it's reasonable to include it on that basis, I think. It's prolly a good idea to shy away from treating anything from novels or comic books as "official". There are enough contradictions in the TV shows alone. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
He's actually on the "commemoration plaque" on the bridge set used on the original Star Trek's live action series, and they had an actor pose for a photo as April for some publicity once. It's definitely part of Star Trek lore. April and Pike both piloted the ship before Kirk, in Star Trek lore. -- user:zanimum
FYI, that publicity photo is Gene Roddenberry in a "Where No Man Has Gone Before" gold uniform. And the commemoration plaque for the NCC-1701 is simply "U.S.S. Enterprise, Starship Class, San Francisco, Calif." -- DarkHorizon 04:13, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of it in nearly 30 years of being a Star Trek fan. My understanding is that "Robert April" was an early name for the captain of the ship (might have been the name in Roddenberry's original proposal to the network), but that the name Christopher Pike was eventually used. The first mention on screen of April was in the animated series. I'm extremely skeptical of reports like this at this late date; I'd want to see info from an original source dating before (at the very latest) 1980 before giving any credence to such a story. The Trek rumor mill is just too susceptible to taking stories that sound good and treating them as truth. -mhr 04:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Diane Carey's book Final Frontier has Robert April captaining the Big E on its first trip out. April's a small part of the deuterocanon but not just rumor. Salsa Shark 04:17, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Robert M. April was the name of the Captain of the "S.S. Yorktown" (the ship wasn't called Enterprise yet) in Roddenberry's initial pitch for the show[1]. This name was changed to Christopher Pike for the first pilot, and changed again to James T. Kirk for the actual series. AFAIK, the animated episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" first suggested that April 'really' existed within the Star Trek universe. -- Harry 22:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum

  • Sounds like a good idea to me :) --Raul654 20:49, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There's not been any fall-out that you know of? I can't remember any of the disgruntled Wikipedians having anything to do with the Star Trek section... we wouldn't be inviting a beast back into our lair or anything? -- user:zanimum
      • I'm one of the contributors to Memory Alpha. AFAIK, it has no connection to disgruntled Wikipedians (although at least one of our sysops is a user here), the Star Trek pages here, or Wikipedia, apart from the format, obviously. I've passed this link onto the sysops, so they can get back to you with the full story. -- DarkHorizon 04:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Wow, you came to us, before I could even contact you! What my proposal is to you, would you like to merge your content into ours. All of your content so far is relevant, non-stubbish, well-written, and NPOV. You and your friend would still be able to write the same content, as you do in Memory Alpha, but we'd be able to make it higher profile and all. We'll be able to provide better access to your content, as we have higher search ratings, and we can help with promotion. No matter what your choice, I whole-heartedly encourage your wiki. Don't think of this as being assimilated, but more like joining the Federation. - user:zanimum
Exactly! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of interlinked encyclopedias, so there is no reason not to have one of those encyclopedias be devoted to the Star Trek universe. --mav

I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, no way to do it automatically I guess Paul Weaver
I'm the other founding sysop of Memory Alpha. As Harry said, we have no direct relationship with Wikipedia, although we both obviously contribute here. I had actually never even heard of Wikipedia before Harry suggested the idea, so I'm still fairly new to the whole concept and I'm still learning the ropes.
The idea of sharing the content back and forth with the Trek pages in Wikipedia is an intriguing proposal, to say the least. I definitely agree that it would help us get some more traffic and help build the web with more contributors. I'm somewhat concerned about the potential conflict in the differing policies between Memory Alpha and Wikipedia -- mainly, the fact that Wikipedia is a real-world reference project, and so requires certain phraseology that we can avoid in Memory Alpha, since we're "speaking" from inside the Trek universe. Also, as a Wikipedia contributor I'm not sure yet if I'm in agreement with the practice of including so much fictional information. But I just keep telling myself that Wikipedia is supposed to be big enough for everyone. <g>
This sure is a long post, isn't it? At any rate, I think we're definitely open to the prospect of sharing content across wikis. I've already used the Wikipedia article on Gene Roddenberry for our own page on him (with appropriate credit, of course). So I think there's definitely some potential there. -- MinutiaeMan 15:09, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
Actually, is there any need to give credit? --Raul654 16:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there is need to give credit! See Wikipedia:Copyrights. --mav 19:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I'd like to give a dissenting opinion here, at risk of my life.  :-) Don't get me wrong: I think M-A is *really* cool. But my reading of it is that what it is is it's the Wikipedia for *people who live inside the Star Trek universe*. It's not cast as fictional, at least, not on the pages I've seen. Therefore, it's material that's not strictly appropriate for direct inclusion in WP, in the form in which it exists.

My suggestion would be to create a cross-link template that picks up the current page name, and provides an explained, boxed, pointer to the appropriate (usually similarly named) page on M-A. --Baylink 03:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Q as enemy?

Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.

MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

"Franchise" is too specialised a wording?

This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No reply to this. Does this mean no-one has a view? :)
I agree, "franchise" should be removed entirely. - Centrx 19:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker of English I have come across this sense of the word "franchise" a couple of times. It is hard to find in dictionaries, which mostly deal with the burger bar thing. A better explanation would be welcome. Perhaps someone could add something to franchise and link to that from here?
I don't see why the word franchise can't be used in lieu of another undetermined word for the time being. Star Trek is the combined, related properties of Paramount, which is similar to a franchise. Ttownfeen 10:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Universal" style?

... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.

In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe he meant that all of the previous intros shared a style, which was thus universal amongst them. --Baylink 03:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"most popular", or "second most popular" ?

"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."

Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),

"Star Trek is ... is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century (Star Wars is the first)."

just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think there is an answer to this question? Who would you expect to be the final authority? How would you compare Star Trek's multiple TV series and movies to the Star Wars sexalogy, since TV shows don't have box office numbers? Should book sales be included? How about pop merchandise? Fan clubs and their membership totals? Longevity? Prevalence in popular cultures around the world? Seems like a very hard thing to nail down. The only thing you could probably state with confidence is that Star Wars movies have earned more revenue than Star Trek movies ($3.5B vs. $1.1B worldwide, by one measurement), but that's hardly the only element of a late 20th Century science fiction franchise. ☺ -- Jeff Q 17:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".

I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.

"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?

Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?

I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".

-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, DavidCary, it's bad Wiki practice to insert new comments into the middle of another person's comments. It works in emails because those are typically dialogues, but on a Wiki Talk page, it makes it very hard for people coming in later to identify who said what and to understand the flow of the discussion. I've committed a second wrong to make a right by restoring my original comment and making yours contiguous. I apologize for this.
Second, I agree with your dissatisfaction over the vagueness of the statement. I'm inclined to go along with your lastest wording suggestion because it removes both the ambiguity and the controversy. I would also say it's accurate. Personally, I think Babylon 5 (the original series) was a better show, but Star Trek, in all its forms, has been vastly more popular. I don't think it has any serious competition on that popularity front. -- Jeff Q 03:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I would say it's a toss-up as to whether Star Trek or Star Wars is the more popular franchise. Mainly because there's no common basis for comparing the popularity of the two, since they mostly exist in slightly different media (television vs. cinema). I think it's accurate to say that Star Trek is one of the two most popular science fiction franchises, but not demonstrably accurate to place it either first or second. -mhr 05:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Let me make an explicit suggestion incorporating DavidCary's phrasing and a nod to Star Wars.
The Star Trek television series is the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century, and arguably the most popular science fiction series of all time. Its cultural impact and financial success is rivalled only by the massively popular Star Wars movie series, which repeatedly set box office records.
I'm still not happy about "most popular SF series", since this discounts classic written SF works like Asimov's Foundation series (although it could be argued that Star Trek characters and storylines are much better known among the general population than Hari Seldon and the Foundation). I'd like to phrase it explicitly about moving-picture (vs. book) SF, but my frazzled brain can't come up with a satisfactory term that elegantly includes both movies and TV.
I don't plan to add this entry or other variation myself, as I don't really have a vested interest in this article (despite my initial, pesky comments!), but I offer it as grist for the contributor mill. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Move to new page

I have noticed that at the bottom of the main page there are many sections all contcining links. I don't know about you but when editing this site I noticed the 32kb notice, so I thought it might be an idea to move the links to a new page and just position a small list of 'good' links on the main page.

Personally, I don't see why this was done. The 32kb limit is not a maximum limit for articles, merely a point at which page rendering becomes difficult for old browsers - most of which are now depreciated. The break-out section created has no real encyclopedic value, and could easily be listed on VfD. I would propose re-merging the content back into this article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misc thing that didn't fit anywhere and that I just shoved here to be deleted quickly

Rumors of Enterprise's cancellation seem inappropriate - this is not a television forum, and the information is going to be outdated in a matter of weeks. Best to wait those two weeks and comment then, I think.Snowspinner 06:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please note the above comment was made nearly a year ago, at a time when rumors of cancellation following Enterprise's third season were rife. 23skidoo 20:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abbrev.

Why are the pages for the various series under strange abbreviations and not under the right names: Star Trek VOY versus Star Trek Voyager. It would be easier to link to them under their right names. ---rmhermen

I agree that Star Trek/Voyager would be better.

Also, what should be call the ships? I assume USS Enterprise-A (for example) not NCC-1701-A. Do we want U.S.S. or just USS?

-- General Wesc
I think we should give the full name and number once, like U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701-A), then call them in a brief version, like Enterprise-A. -- Magnus Manske
I meant in the entry title. -- General Wesc

Okay, I've decided, until somebody disagrees, that entries for ships will be /USS Shipname (or /USS Shipname-A or whatever.) One thing I've learned, it's best to have a standard before we've got twenty-thousand entries all pointing to different places for the same ship. -- General Wesc

Agreed. --PSzalapski 20:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek's genre

Is Star Trek space opera, or science fiction/soft science fiction? I'm tempted to class it as space opera, but sometimes it does get a little bit philosophical about pseudo-scientific issues.

IMHO we might say Trek is Haute Space Opera.  :-)
ST (with the possible exception of DS9) doesn't really qualify as Space Opera under the "traditional" sense of, say, Doc Smith. Bob McDob 02:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A friend of mine described Trek as Technofantasy with the assertion that there is relatively little "science" to the fiction and that the Transporter, Replicators, Warp Drives, Dilithium, Latinum, and other trappings are really more akin the swords & sorcery genre. I'm inclined to agree with him. I wouldn't class Trek as "space opera" because it simply isn't operatic --- it's episodic rather than epic. They are morality plays but they are not about events that are greater than the characters involved. (The DS9 war against the "Founders" in the Gamma Quadrant was the most epic ongoing plot development from all of the series). I dont' mean any of the pejoratively either.JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
Star Trek has got to be "soft science fiction", unless you claim that nothing can be popular if it is true "science fiction"! --PSzalapski 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

TREKKERS vs TREKKIES

  • A few notes: one, why make this a subpage of Star Trek? What other kind of Trekkies have you heard of? two, it's not universally considered derogatory; in fact, some "trekkies" prefer to be called "trekkies," while other fans prefer "trekkers."
Ok, here's the deal. In the beginning all Star Trek fans were Trekkies. Then about the time when Star Trek started having conventions dedicated to it a new class of fan emerged. Instead of just enjoying the show these fans wanted to participate. For instance, these fans are likely to own Star Trek uniforms that they wear to conventions, club meetings and in extreme cases to work. They more likely than not consider Klingon a second language and own English to Klingon dictionaries. It is these super fans that decided Trekkie was demeaning and adopted the term trekker. The casual Star Trek fan doesn't mind being called a Trekkie.

A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --

  • I had always believed that "Trekkie" refers to fans who are new to the universe of Star Trek, while "Trekker" refers to those who have been fans for many years. For example, I consider myself a "Trekker" because I have been a fan since about 1994, whereas I consider my nephew a "Trekkie" because he has only been a fan for a year or so.
    • The distinction I always understood was that a Trekker might go to a Star Trek convention to see Leonard Nimoy and ask him what it was like playing such an interesting character, whereas a Trekkie would go along to meet Mr Spock and ask him to teach them how to mind-meld. (I was a babbler: I went to the Babylon 5 Wrap Party and actually met JMS and all I could do was babble :-) --Phil | Talk 07:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • That matches my understanding. --Locarno 15:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That's the opposite of how I always heard it. -Branddobbe 08:17, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Concur with Locarno: Trekkers (IME) are people who consider themselves sane and proper fans of the fiction, and want to distinguish themselves from Trekkies, who wear their uniforms to work in The West Wing (television). --Baylink 03:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --

  • I class myself as a trekkie, but I don't care if I'm called a trekker. This discussion is pointless. I don't know if any Star Trek fans care. Computerjoe 11:16, 4 Dec, 2004.

TNG Star Trek/Star Trek TNG now needs some new data, as I just deleted the overly-biassed description.


How do we link episodes? I'm thinking of doing a list of the episodes with the Borg that I know of for the Borg page.

-- Peter Winnberg


Subpages

I propose that we kill the / pages in the Star Trek articles in the same way as the / pages were removed in the Star Wars articles. The subpage functionality no longer works with the new wikipedia software so there is no real reason why the / pages should still extist. How many other instances of the terms Klingon, James T. Kirk or tribbles are likely to crop up in any context or mean anything other than they do in relation to the Star Trek universe? If an ambigutity issue does crop-up we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Trek term X into X (Star Trek) if another term is nearly equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Trek term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Trek one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Trek term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Trek term. See Paris for an example of this type of disambiguation. Either way, we sould try to make linking to Star Trek terms as easy and natural as possible within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write [[Star Trek/Star Trek TNG|Star Trek: The Next Generation]] each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. In addition - contributions to the Star Wars articles seem to have significantly increased since I killed the / pages there (this probably has a lot to do with Attack of the Clones but easy linking within the articles couldn't possibly hurt the rate of contribs). If there are no loud protests, I will do this myself in a day or two. --maveric149, Sunday, May 26, 2002

OK, it's been a week since my warning and I am now going to follow through on my threat on killing the / pages in these articles and moving them to non-/ed titles. --maveric149
This is taking way longer than I thought due to slowness of the wikipedia server and the fact that I am having to hand fix hundreds of links and reformat each article. There are still several articles left over that need moving. I will get around to these later. Watch for broken links. --maveric149
Done. <rant>Damn! Moving everything around, and reformating each Star Trek page and link took almost 5 hours! This could have easily been done in 2 if wikipedia wasn't do dang slow.</rant> --maveric149

Theme music lyrics

I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)

Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin

someone's added them to Star Trek The Original Series. Seems they're not by GR. Another mystery solved at WIkipedia! -- Tarquin
Roddenberry did write them so that he would receive half of the music royalties, even though they would never be sung. This is documented in Solow and Justman's "Inside Star Trek". (Snopes has a page on this: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/trek1.htm ) -- Arteitle

The Klingons: Asian-Look-Alike

"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003

Reset Button - term coined by some Trekkies to describe disturbance of time stream continuity." Isn't wikipedia supposed to be edited for better readability?
Also, "'"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features.' Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. " In The Original Series, Klingons did look Asian. Tjdw 01:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
They always looked like mongols-in-space to me, which I think was the intention. Roddenberry long claimed that they always were meant to look like the did in the films and in TNG, but they didn't have the budget in the 60s to show them that way. But since Roddenberry wasn't closely involved with the series when they were created (Gene Coon was in charge by that point, and he even wrote "Errand of Mercy"), and he was never one to shy away from taking credit for anything he could possibly take credit for, I've never really believed him. (I always thought the bumpy-head Klingons looked pretty stupid, anyway.) -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Klingons were always supposed to have a sort of Mongolian look to them, especially in the original series. Trek made a habit, for good or ill, of creating alien races with strong parallels to Earth cultures in various degrees. The Romulans, for example, were clearly taken straight from the ancient Roman Empire. The Klingons were supposed to be Communist analogues in their conflict with the Federation, but were also apparently intended to be something like the invading Mongolian hordes in some respects. I can't comment too directly on the original intentions of the writers or makeup artists, but that's how I've always perceived them. -- MinutiaeMan 14:57, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
The Original series Klingons resemble Asians in the 30's pulp stereotype sense, i.e. Ming the Merciless - greasy-faced schemers. Bob McDob 02:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Romances of the captains

"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."

Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

LOL! True... There was actually a Futurama episode like that, actually featuring the Star Trek crew, and Kirk was making out and shirt ripped. --Menchi 10:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Where no fan has gone before", production series 4. Paul Weaver 20:33, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is something of a myth, since if you count it up (which I was once geeky enough to do), even stretching a few episodes a lo-o-ong way, only about 1/3 of the episodes end up with Kirk getting the girl. But, of course, it's more fun to perpetuate the myth. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Maybe Kirk isn't particularly sex-stuffed when compared to real life people, but when I compare Kirk to Archer, Sisko, Janeway and Picard just from memory, Kirk seems to get the most. The rest get like...one romantic situation per season! Of course one can say Picard is too old and too wise to have any sex drive left... --Menchi 04:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kirk's Lineage

Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.

-- Jordan

Well, considering 'european-american' is a euphemism for 'white', i guess so... Of course, Shatner claims Kirk is Jewish. Morwen 10:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, I think Kirk says he's from Iowa (he "only works in outer space").
That is correct. --mav

Capt. April

Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:

April (a precursor captian to Kirk)

Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen

Truth. Captain Robert Aprils was captain of the NCC-1701 before Christopher Pike, who preceded Kirk. --General Wesc
See also: Starship Enterprise. --Menchi 02:06, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The basis for this is a single episode of the animated series, but it's reasonable to include it on that basis, I think. It's prolly a good idea to shy away from treating anything from novels or comic books as "official". There are enough contradictions in the TV shows alone. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
He's actually on the "commemoration plaque" on the bridge set used on the original Star Trek's live action series, and they had an actor pose for a photo as April for some publicity once. It's definitely part of Star Trek lore. April and Pike both piloted the ship before Kirk, in Star Trek lore. -- user:zanimum
FYI, that publicity photo is Gene Roddenberry in a "Where No Man Has Gone Before" gold uniform. And the commemoration plaque for the NCC-1701 is simply "U.S.S. Enterprise, Starship Class, San Francisco, Calif." -- DarkHorizon 04:13, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of it in nearly 30 years of being a Star Trek fan. My understanding is that "Robert April" was an early name for the captain of the ship (might have been the name in Roddenberry's original proposal to the network), but that the name Christopher Pike was eventually used. The first mention on screen of April was in the animated series. I'm extremely skeptical of reports like this at this late date; I'd want to see info from an original source dating before (at the very latest) 1980 before giving any credence to such a story. The Trek rumor mill is just too susceptible to taking stories that sound good and treating them as truth. -mhr 04:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Diane Carey's book Final Frontier has Robert April captaining the Big E on its first trip out. April's a small part of the deuterocanon but not just rumor. Salsa Shark 04:17, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Robert M. April was the name of the Captain of the "S.S. Yorktown" (the ship wasn't called Enterprise yet) in Roddenberry's initial pitch for the show[2]. This name was changed to Christopher Pike for the first pilot, and changed again to James T. Kirk for the actual series. AFAIK, the animated episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" first suggested that April 'really' existed within the Star Trek universe. -- Harry 22:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum

  • Sounds like a good idea to me :) --Raul654 20:49, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There's not been any fall-out that you know of? I can't remember any of the disgruntled Wikipedians having anything to do with the Star Trek section... we wouldn't be inviting a beast back into our lair or anything? -- user:zanimum
      • I'm one of the contributors to Memory Alpha. AFAIK, it has no connection to disgruntled Wikipedians (although at least one of our sysops is a user here), the Star Trek pages here, or Wikipedia, apart from the format, obviously. I've passed this link onto the sysops, so they can get back to you with the full story. -- DarkHorizon 04:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Wow, you came to us, before I could even contact you! What my proposal is to you, would you like to merge your content into ours. All of your content so far is relevant, non-stubbish, well-written, and NPOV. You and your friend would still be able to write the same content, as you do in Memory Alpha, but we'd be able to make it higher profile and all. We'll be able to provide better access to your content, as we have higher search ratings, and we can help with promotion. No matter what your choice, I whole-heartedly encourage your wiki. Don't think of this as being assimilated, but more like joining the Federation. - user:zanimum
Exactly! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of interlinked encyclopedias, so there is no reason not to have one of those encyclopedias be devoted to the Star Trek universe. --mav

I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, no way to do it automatically I guess Paul Weaver
I'm the other founding sysop of Memory Alpha. As Harry said, we have no direct relationship with Wikipedia, although we both obviously contribute here. I had actually never even heard of Wikipedia before Harry suggested the idea, so I'm still fairly new to the whole concept and I'm still learning the ropes.
The idea of sharing the content back and forth with the Trek pages in Wikipedia is an intriguing proposal, to say the least. I definitely agree that it would help us get some more traffic and help build the web with more contributors. I'm somewhat concerned about the potential conflict in the differing policies between Memory Alpha and Wikipedia -- mainly, the fact that Wikipedia is a real-world reference project, and so requires certain phraseology that we can avoid in Memory Alpha, since we're "speaking" from inside the Trek universe. Also, as a Wikipedia contributor I'm not sure yet if I'm in agreement with the practice of including so much fictional information. But I just keep telling myself that Wikipedia is supposed to be big enough for everyone. <g>
This sure is a long post, isn't it? At any rate, I think we're definitely open to the prospect of sharing content across wikis. I've already used the Wikipedia article on Gene Roddenberry for our own page on him (with appropriate credit, of course). So I think there's definitely some potential there. -- MinutiaeMan 15:09, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
Actually, is there any need to give credit? --Raul654 16:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there is need to give credit! See Wikipedia:Copyrights. --mav 19:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Q as enemy?

Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.

MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

"Franchise" is too specialised a wording?

This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No reply to this. Does this mean no-one has a view? :)
I agree, "franchise" should be removed entirely. - Centrx 19:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker of English I have come across this sense of the word "franchise" a couple of times. It is hard to find in dictionaries, which mostly deal with the burger bar thing. A better explanation would be welcome. Perhaps someone could add something to franchise and link to that from here?
I don't see why the word franchise can't be used in lieu of another undetermined word for the time being. Star Trek is the combined, related properties of Paramount, which is similar to a franchise. Ttownfeen 10:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To paraphrase Dick Wolf from the Law & Order dominion: Star Trek isn't a franchise, it's a brand. Just like L&O is, whereas CSI *is* a franchise: it's the same show in different cities; the L&O shows -- like the ST shows -- are similar but different shows. But, in this case, the usage being implied is the same as when Kobe Bryant (for example) is called a "franchise player"; it's a generalization from 'sports franchise' as something to which some group has exclusive exploitation rights to make money. --Baylink 03:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Universal" style?

... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.

In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"most popular", or "second most popular" ?

"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."

Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),

"Star Trek is ... is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century (Star Wars is the first)."

just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think there is an answer to this question? Who would you expect to be the final authority? How would you compare Star Trek's multiple TV series and movies to the Star Wars sexalogy, since TV shows don't have box office numbers? Should book sales be included? How about pop merchandise? Fan clubs and their membership totals? Longevity? Prevalence in popular cultures around the world? Seems like a very hard thing to nail down. The only thing you could probably state with confidence is that Star Wars movies have earned more revenue than Star Trek movies ($3.5B vs. $1.1B worldwide, by one measurement), but that's hardly the only element of a late 20th Century science fiction franchise. ☺ -- Jeff Q 17:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".

I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.

"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?

Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?

I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".

-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, DavidCary, it's bad Wiki practice to insert new comments into the middle of another person's comments. It works in emails because those are typically dialogues, but on a Wiki Talk page, it makes it very hard for people coming in later to identify who said what and to understand the flow of the discussion. I've committed a second wrong to make a right by restoring my original comment and making yours contiguous. I apologize for this.
Second, I agree with your dissatisfaction over the vagueness of the statement. I'm inclined to go along with your lastest wording suggestion because it removes both the ambiguity and the controversy. I would also say it's accurate. Personally, I think Babylon 5 (the original series) was a better show, but Star Trek, in all its forms, has been vastly more popular. I don't think it has any serious competition on that popularity front. -- Jeff Q 03:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I would say it's a toss-up as to whether Star Trek or Star Wars is the more popular franchise. Mainly because there's no common basis for comparing the popularity of the two, since they mostly exist in slightly different media (television vs. cinema). I think it's accurate to say that Star Trek is one of the two most popular science fiction franchises, but not demonstrably accurate to place it either first or second. -mhr 05:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Let me make an explicit suggestion incorporating DavidCary's phrasing and a nod to Star Wars.
The Star Trek television series is the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century, and arguably the most popular science fiction series of all time. Its cultural impact and financial success is rivalled only by the massively popular Star Wars movie series, which repeatedly set box office records.
I'm still not happy about "most popular SF series", since this discounts classic written SF works like Asimov's Foundation series (although it could be argued that Star Trek characters and storylines are much better known among the general population than Hari Seldon and the Foundation). I'd like to phrase it explicitly about moving-picture (vs. book) SF, but my frazzled brain can't come up with a satisfactory term that elegantly includes both movies and TV.
I don't plan to add this entry or other variation myself, as I don't really have a vested interest in this article (despite my initial, pesky comments!), but I offer it as grist for the contributor mill. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

DS9 Bajoran or Fed outpost?

A recent update changed the wording of Deep Space 9's description from a "Federation outpost" to a "Bajoran outpost under Federation control". Even though that sounds right to me (though I'm not absolutely sure), it raises an interesting question. Why would a Bajoran outpost adopt the name "Deep Space 9"? The "Deep Space" nomenclature comes from Starfleet; i.e., the Federation. (Witness the occasional mention of other Deep Space # stations throughout ST:TNG and the other series and movies.) Wouldn't the Bajorans change its old Cardassian name of Terok Nor (sp?) to a Bajoran one? The station certainly isn't in "deep space" relative to Bajor! -- Jeff Q 10:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

The station was established as officially Bajoran early and often, and this fact was also used as a plot point several times. Some Bajorans on the show were quite upset that the Federation was running their station--these characters saw it as a change from one evil regime to another not-quite-as-evil regime! The name of Deep Space 9 certainly doesn't fit in with all the other Federation "Deep Space #" stations. Perhaps one could rationalize that the Federation gave it a name when the Bajorans failed to do so? The station was constructed by Cardassians, so it is likely that the Bajorans called it nothing but "Terok Nor" previously. Thanks for the comment! --PSzalapski 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Characters

These lists of characters should be in the articles for the respective series' and films. They remain here for reference. Characters common to many of the "regions" of characters, like Q, still belong in this article.

Star Trek characters

Original crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701

Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701

Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Regular crew and civilians of the Federation Station Deep Space Nine

Regular crew of the USS Voyager NCC-74656

Regular crew of Enterprise NX-01

Other Characters

Star Trek computer/video games producers

In section Games, "subsection" Computer/video games, I would very much like to see the year of release and the producing company's name, for each game, instead of a list of producers on top. I have started doing this for a few games (listed the producers at least) but could do with some help. Also, in the future, we should perhaps list the games' platforms, so readers might get a picture of which computers/video game consoles have been 'supported by Star Trek' at various times. --Wernher 21:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Comparisons: alien races vs. real world ethnical groups

How can you seriously mean that Bajorans have anything to do with Israel or Jews? Their great pride is art and culture, and it's quite obvious that this planet (read country) is Greece. Greeks were also under occupation for a long time, treated badly....read: cardassians are probably Turks. :-)

  I feel that the section at the end of the "Star Trek and society" part is quite vulnerable to POV. People have a lot of different interpretations, and different aspects of an alien race could be interpreted different ways. Take a look at the bajorans. I noticed that somebody just changed their affiliation from "jews" to "greek". When it comes to the work/internation camps, I agree that one would compare it to the jews in Europe during WW2. But when it comes to religion, it would probably be closer to the greek. Living in occupied land, I think about the palestinians.
  A similar approach could be taken on the Federation. "Socialism" is mention as the represented ideology. I don't think everybody agree to that. As a social-liberal, I would claim that it's just as much (and maybe more) social-liberalism being represented. Somebody told me that Roddenberry was an objectivist. That could well be, considering Picard protecting the prime directive's isolationism (not interfere with other species interal affairs etc.).
  The point is, there is not one correct interpretation, so if we are going to have a list like that, we must be open to allow different views, and ADD to the list, instead of REPLACING entries. Mendalus 03:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed list

"Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom. Some examples:

"

I removed the above because it looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions. If Earth had been intended to represent the USA then wouldn't it have been called 'USA' and Enterprise not given a multiracial crew? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few of the above are pretty well substantiated. The Romulan-Romans association, for example, has been obvious since "Balance of Terror". I think the connection between Earth (or the UFP) and the United States has some merit, too. Many of the internal problems the UFP faces are those of living in a democracy—the best government, except for all the others. In Insurrection, our heroes face evil machinery set in motion by the government which must be overturned using the democratic process. (Remember Ru'afu's rant about "Federation opinion polls"?) This resembles a present-day America, expanded to Galactic scale to make its problems more evident (perhaps the classic trick of science fiction). At other times, the UFP resembles what its creators think Earth and the USA should be. I trust everyone remembers "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", where Lokai and Bele chase each other across the Galaxy, the last two survivors of apocalyptic racial hatred. Spock overhears Lokai haranguing the crew in the cafeteria, and Chekhov delivers the immortal line, "But there was prejudice on Earth once. I read about it in history textbooks." In The Undiscovered Country, the President claims to be "not above the law"; we certainly hope this to be the case in America.
I've heard that the powers-that-be cooked up the name "Suliban" to follow "Taliban"; this sounds so corny it just might be true. (Anyone have any Paramount memoranda to back this up?) Rather than merely listing the correspondence, it may instead be more useful to give the historical basis—i.e., the writers made it that way—and then describe how their portrayal has changed in the following years. (Had there been no 11/9, wouldn't the United Statesians see the Taliban rather differently? I can see an alternative history where the producers never needed a new set of baddies, and the Xindi were never invented.) Similarly, the rationale for comparing Bajorans to Greeks is interesting, and I find it quite titillating to see the same group joined with both Palestinians and Jews. Wouldn't it be better to make the comparison a paragraph, instead of a bullet point?
OK, OK, I should have researched before yapping my mouth off. Berman and Braga reveal their dark secrets in an interview[3], linked from the ST:ENT page.Anville 13:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The list contains Jews in three places, linked with Vulcans, Ferengi, and Bajorans, as if three different aspects of the stereotype were being parodied. (Talmudic logic, lending money at interest, and suffering persecution, I suppose.) Historically, of course, none of these traits are unique to the Jewish diaspora, and a Star Trek article is probably not the proper place to investigate whether we more commonly associate Jews to those characteristics than any other groups. If Trekkers have made substantial speculation on this matter, we should report the speculation, but otherwise I don't see the point. Whoever first invented the Ferengi, for example, may have wanted to satirize capitalism in general; if we then turn around and say that the Ferengi were built out of Ashkenazi stereotypes, we are not only being prejudiced, we are committing a logical fallacy. (Worse than a crime, it's a blunder.)
If there is a solid historical reason for linking Bajor to Palestine, say—if the writers admit to it—or if the fan community has discussed long and hard about it, then the article should report that, and indicate which way it is. Being even-handed Wikipedians, we should naturally report all sides to these debates: any statement that Bajorans resemble Jews for being persecuted should be paired with the note that the same logic joins them to the Palestinians. (Sorry historical commentary, isn't it? But this isn't the place. . .) I'm sure that fannish discussions bring up one such argument right after the other, in true Trekker fashion. (This might be a special case of a general trait; compare the cultural portrait drawn in the Jargon File. I've been a party to many SFnal debates, and most of them delve into—sorry to say it—almost Talmudic reasoning.)
The United States is pretty damn "multiracial"; I can only assume the "races" mentioned above are different humanoid species. Well, again, expanding Terran problems to a wider scope is one of the canonical ways science fiction addresses modern society and makes itself relevant. (This is one reason I love Asimov's human-only Galaxy, since it avoids the Trekkish problem of giving entire species the same personality type. Oh, sure, the best Trek stories rise above this, but we all know what Klingons are like, and when one isn't a war machine we certainly make a grand occsion out of it. But anyway. . .) Cyberpunk SF does the same thing by expanding human issues into societies of cyborgs and AIs, but having been born before Neuromancer, the Original Series had to include Vulcans, Romulans, Andorians and the lot.
I suggest taking the best-supported items from this list and expanding them into (brief) paragraphs. As such, they may be better suited in the articles on the respective races, but they would certainly be easier to discuss and clarify. I'll attempt to do this; someone had better beat me to it.
Anville 18:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The subject needs to be dealt with. Star Trek is famous for taking real-world ideological/political/ethinic groups and then thinly disguising them, and dealing with their issues in storylines. Sometimes 'Trek' didn't even disguise the allegory, and bluntly hit you over the head with it, as with "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" on race relations, and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" with its oh-so-subtle (NOT!) take on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not anyone agrees with the list's presence in the article - and I agree with Mendalus that it is vulnerable to POV - the overall fact that Trek has always used human and alien races to present perspectives on real-world issues needs to be addressed in an encyclopedic article about 'Trek.'

If the list is not the right way to do it, fine, then we need suggestions. A paragraph might cover it, though I think it might be possible to write a whole article about the subject. How do we tackle the subject here in a sensitive, NPOV manner? Kevyn 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm the one that added this section to the page. I expected it to be controversial, but am surprised at how long it took.
I'm sure that most of the stuff I posted has been substantiated in books/magazines. When I get a chance, I'll go through and see, unless someone else does first.
This is the list as I originally stated:
"Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom. Some examples:
This info is based in part on a thread from rec.arts.startrek.tech
There's plenty of material there for discussion.
As for the Suliban/Taliban (who someone changed to Al-Qaeda), the link someone posted here says that they only have the name in common, with no thematic connection, so I'd remove that.
Regarding DJ Clayworth's comment "the above [...] looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions," I think a lot of philosophy is garbage, but I still acknowledge that other believe in it. The article did not state that these comparisons were facts; only that "in some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom."
Finally, I think this list belongs on the main Star Trek page, while explanations can be given on individual races' pages. (The above post was made by StAkAr Karnak) - Acegikmo1 03:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO, some of the list should stay, some should go. Comparing the Ferengi to Jews may have a historical precedent, as Jews were moneylenders during the Middle Ages, but I think it's open to accusations of racism. The Suliban-Taliban connection is documented in the Star Trek: Enterprise article, so it should stay. I'm not really sure how the comparison of Vulcans to the British came about.
Acegikmo1 03:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"There is indeed plenty of material for discussion, and rec.arts.startrek.tech is exatly the place for it. An encyclopedia should deal with facts. I think we should restrict our parallels to cases where the authors intended there to be such a parallel.

It looks to me as though there are several categories of association here. First there are ones clearly intended to be parallels by the authors, into which seem to fall the Romulans/Rome, Suliban/Taliban. Some are a bit more generic - for example the Cardassians are clearly intended to be Imperialist agressors, but is there really any reason to think they represent one particular apressor rather than another. Finally there are cases where someone has clearly just though "Hey these guys remind me a bit of....". Vulcans=British clearly falls into that category. What we really need to do is distinguish between these (and preferably eliminate the last one, since it's wildly subjective). DJ Clayworth 15:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) DJ Clayworth 14:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMO, this page should steer a wide berth around parrallels between ST races and actual human groups unless Gene and crew actually documented such a relationship. If we start introducing non-factual parrallels, the possibility for sterotypes to creep into text increases and also increases the edit war risk. See the Israel and Yasser Arafat page... Revmachine21 05:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Trek Game

I've added information regarding two new Trek Games being produced, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Tactical Assault.

  User:HIDDEN 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Anon.

Year in film

It is my understanding that the standard is not to use piped "year in x" links. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards corroborates this:

Don't use piped links to the "year in music" articles (i.e. do not write "the Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963"). Instead, link to the normal year article (1963) and, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as "The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music)".

So this is why I deleted the "xxxx in film" links. -Branddobbe 08:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well:

  1. That's music not films
  2. Like every guideline on WP, it's not mandatory
  3. Care to finish what you quoted?
In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the year in music articles.

Which says to me that non-piped links are acceptable in place of piped links, and I would call a listing of movies equivalent to a discography. My arguments are precisely the opposite as voiced there: the year article is only one click away from "xxxx in film" Cburnett 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the year in music examples (and it is in fact done that way in the individual Star Trek movie articles, for example: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount Pictures, 1979; see also 1979 in film)), I could go either way in regards to the table in the Star Trek article; the rationale doesn't exactly apply to this. I'd tend to prefer to leave it as it was. Commander

The more I think about it, those years could be removed entirely; the information is redundant and is found by clicking the individual movie links. Either that, or move the year after the movie title, place it in parenthesis, and make it a link to the year only. So instead of * 1979: Star Trek: The Motion Picture, make it * Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). I prefer the latter as it would be more consistent with how the television series are listed above. Comments please. Commander 08:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another point, creating a consistency of style between the television series and movie sections of the article seems like one step in the direction of regaining featured article status (including expanding each movie into a subheading, with synopsis information below). Commander 08:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

End or Legacy of Star Trek

Will Star Trek end and be a forgotten memory that is completely buried in history? - John-1107

Talk pages now the forum for philosophical discussions? :) Cburnett 02:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Forgotten memory? No. Not for years to come. After all, several of the shows were engineered and designed to air for syndication. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think even if no new series or movies are produced, there will still be continuous re-runs, new novels and other merchandise. Avid fans will still attend conferences and new generations will discover Star Trek for themselves when they see the repeats, just like TOS has been repeated over the decades. I think Star Trek will stay with us for a long time yet! Marky1981 00:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But what we don't know is will there be any new Star Trek movies or shows instead of syndication? - John-1107

Well, we know that a Trek XI is in the planning stages, but whether it actually goes anywhere has yet to be seen. The fact Rick Berman is involved will turn a lot of people off simply out of principle (so much for IDIC). My personal view on this subject is more along the lines of: when Star Trek comes back, will it be the same as the Star Trek we all grew up with? Like it or lump it, ENT was part of Roddenberry's universe, as was Voyager and the rest. With reboots and reimaginings under way in other franchises (Battlestar Galactica, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, pretty much every long-running comic book series, and most recently James Bond) I feel the temptation is very great for Paramount to do the same thing, and IMO a "regime change" will most certainly result in something that won't resemble what Roddenberry created. I can see the signs now: people want Star Trek to become a clone of BSG, of Firefly, of Farscape ... but by doing so, Trek will simply become, well, a clone of etc etc etc. In answer to the original question, there is simply too much Star Trek for it become forgotten. But I do feel that the final episode of Enterprise in May and *maybe* Trek XI will serve as epilogues to the franchise and the continuity that was created waaaay back in 1964 when The Cage was filmed. After that we may see Star Trek 2.0 and, hey, it might be good and it might be popular. But it won't be the same. 23skidoo 00:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I dunno. IM(NS)HO (as a long-time Trekker), there's enuf life in the "universe" to carry several series. How much, in 727 episodes (count "The Cage"), has been hinted at but never shown? For eg: Shran, Worf, Martok, lying Vulcans, Hirogen (& the rest of the Delta Quadrant)...N to ref whatever happened to Sisko (& "DS9" movies...). An "Academy" series, or a broader "Starfleet", could EZ be done, if N "Federation" (which could get really big...) When enuf people realize they're not getting their "ST" fix, something'll happen, just like with "STTMP". Trekphiler 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if there are no more incarnations of Star Trek, it will certainally not be forgotten. Its social impact and its impact on the media is simply to significant to be forgotten. There may well be new Star Trek series yet to come, but Paramount may need to have fresh blood and ideas. One episode of Enterprise was an exact ripoff of a Voyager episode (one where the crew has to go through an expanse of space in suspended animation, where only one crew member is conscious during this time). Just because someone is out of ideas doesn't mean there are no more ideas.--RLent 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Optimism = POV

AlistairMcMillan just undid my edit. I think it should be discussed here.

The article stated that Trek is an optimistic view of the future. Alistair says in his edit notes "It is incredibly well documented that Star Trek presents an optimistic vision of the future. That is not POV."

Optimism is an opinion and by its nature takes a position that one condition is preferable to another. It is not neutral and therefore it biases the article.

Gene Roddenberry had an "incredibly well documented" history as a secular humanist. He believed that mankind is capable of solving all of its problems without intervention from a higher power. This is a major theme in Trek and is definitely POV. To say that Trek is a secular humanistic view is much more accurate.--StAkAr Karnak 00:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While it's hard to believe that anyone would think that sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare are good things, "optimistic" is POV. Furthermore, secular humanism describes it perfectly, and Gene Roddenberry was indeed a secular humanist. Commander 01:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

If Gene was a "well documented "secular humanist" then would you mind listing a source or two here, because I seem to have failed to pick up on that fact.

I based my edit, mostly on memory and a little Google search:

I could go on, but you can check for yourself. AlistairMcMillan 05:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your results are not from encyclopedias and are therefore not necessarily NPOV. For evidence on the secular humanism, you could start at wikipedia with the Gene Roddenberry and Secular humanism articles. Just because Star Trek has never been described in a NPOV manner as secular humanist, doesn't make it incorrect. Commander 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You are right about the Gene == humanist thing. Funny I never picked up on that before. Anyway...

I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV thing. We are supposed to avoid adding our own POV. We can report other people's POV. For example you can't say in an article "Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far" but you can say "Dan Curry thinks Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far [4]".

The dispute here isn't whether "optimistic" or "secular humanist" are NPOV or not. The point is whether the series are identified as "optimistic" or "secular humanist" most often. AlistairMcMillan 05:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The core of the matter is whether optimism is a POV. I thought this was self-evident. Nevertheless, a look at the article of optimism says in part (italics mine): "Optimism, the opposite of pessimism, is a lifeview where one looks upon the world as a positive place. Optimists generally believe that people are inherently good. They have a "positive" outlook on life, believing that given time, things will work out in the end." If that does not describe a POV, I must be missing something.
Secular humanism arises because I did not wish to delete optimism without replacing it was something suitably descriptive. Does Star Trek have a viewpoint? I think it does. Secular humanism fits the bill and is in line with the personal viewpoint of Trek's creator.--StAkAr Karnak 13:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Secular humanism denotes a religious attitude that IMO is not related to whether or not Star Trek is "optimistic". It has been well documented that Roddenberry's view of his universe is that it be optimistic. This is why Deep Space Nine - the darkest of the Trek series - remains controversial among Trek fans, and why many were upset by the creation of Section 31.
There is some discussion to be had regarding Star Trek's non-religious view (very rarely is religion addressed and we hardly ever see references to earth religions) and IMO that is where a dicussion of "secular humanism" would be more appropriate. BTW the term "humanism" cannot be applied to Star Trek in any event because many of its characters are not human, and to do so would contradict the spirit of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" in which the use of a similar term is actually described as racist. 23skidoo 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does Trek have a viewpoint? Yes. How can we describe what viewpoint Trek represents without it being POV? THAT is the crux of the matter.
It depicts a world (a galaxy), where man (and eventually other species representing aspects of humanity) overcome their problems without help from higher (divine) sources. It presents this as something viable and realistic. That is Roddenberry's opinion. Is that optimistic? Depends on your POV.
Hitler must've thought that the Third Reich was optimistic. Do we care? Not really. His POV should not affect the Third Reich article. Just as Roddenberry's POV should not affect the Trek article.
As far as the SH term being racist, that would only be applicable if it were used within the context of the story. We are viewers in the "real world" where SH is a practical term.--StAkAr Karnak 14:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"man overcome their problems without help from higher sources" Is that all that Star Trek is about? Is that even a central theme in Star Trek? I don't think so.

The sentence you are trying to edit goes on to say "...humankind has overcome sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare on Earth; the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding." Nothing to do with religion. And unless you can find someone who thinks that that is a pessimistic or negative vision of the future, I think "optimistic" is the obvious word that fits here. AlistairMcMillan 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man can overcome their problems. Is that a central theme of Trek? Absolutely. Fact.
How do they do so? Through their own ingenuity. What is this called? Secular humanism. Fact.
Is the Trek future a desirable one? You say yes. You are an optimist in this context. Fact.
Does coloring a reference work with opinions inform the reader in an unbiased manner? No. It loses credibility as an authority because it promotes an agenda.--StAkAr Karnak 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: while it may be POV to characterise the series' as 'optimistic', it is *not* POV to report that the people involved in creating the series *said* that they intended an optimistic portrayal of the future. If they did say it that way, let's just source it, quote it, and move along?
--Baylink 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it has been nearly 3 months since anyone actually made an issue of this, I don't think there's a need to revisit the issue at the moment.23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Progress is not made by evaporating issues; it is made by resolving issues. Until a resolution is reaches, an issue is still open.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only solution I can see is deleting the article because everything is POV to some extent. At some point you have to say "who really gives a darn"? This whole issue is IMO and POV a bad case of "splitting hairs." 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is pervasive evidence that the franchise depicts an optimistic future and it's not POV to say so.23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To say that a depiction is favorable by a segment of indivduals is factual. To say that it is favorable Period is a sweeping generalization.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's based upon the statements of the man who created Star Trek and those individuals assigned to continue the franchise after his death. That's what I mean by pervasive. We're only reporting what has been said by those who made Star Trek. If you want sources there are probably hundreds. Start with The Making of Star Trek (published 1968) and end with comments made by Rick Berman and others following the cancellation of Enterprise. 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So just because a group of people who made it think it's optimistic means that their opinion is automatically a fact? What is the objection to wording things to say something like "Many people feel it is an optimistic depiction of the future"?--StAkAr Karnak 10:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms
The very fact that it does not depict a dystopia is evidence enough of that. 23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Utopias and dystopias are relative.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So is everything else, however if you look at Wikipedia articles related to dystopian fiction, you can see obvious differences compare to the attitude Star Trek takes. 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peace and understanding

AlistairMcMillan brings up something I was getting around to anyway when he says: "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding."

I object to this. Was the Federation helping spread peace by defying the Dominion's claim to sovereignty in the Gamma Quadrant?

Trek has a Human-centric (even a Western-centric) POV and very often promotes the idea that Humans have all the answers and everyone should be like them. The Ferengi turned democratic. Archer told the Andorians and the Tellarites that they should start acting Human. The Klingons eventually join the Federation. The Federation imposes its ideals on everyone they meet. That is the real "understanding" promoted. Michael Eddington was right. --StAkAr Karnak 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. I should quote this as a prime example of "taking science fiction too seriously" and add it with the crowds of people that put The Day After Tomorrow down because the story was implausible. Funny how some just.....just ignore that whole fiction bit in "science fiction." Cburnett 18:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If one doesn't care about the integrity of a given subject, why bother? If we're going to do something, it should be done correctly.--StAkAr Karnak 19:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that you'll find most, if not all, things will contradict itself. Here's a simple litmus test that I *just* made up:
  • Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote violent and irrational actions to commit genocide or anything not resembling peace?
  • Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote division of peoples because of differences?
I have to quickly, and unequivocally, answer "No" to both of those questions. Cburnett 20:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Distilling your test while attempting to preserve the meaning of the questions:
1) Does the Federation promote anything not resembling peace?
The Federation has been interpreted by fans/writers to represent the United States and/or the United Nations. It is not a universal opinion that these organizations are bastions of peace and understanding. Mind you, I am not taking sides.
Indeed, according to Wikipedia's article on peace, there is a measure of controversy and nuance inherent in the term.
Likewise, to say that the Federation's ideals promote understanding implies compromise; yielding. That is not entirely accurate.
2) Does the Federation promote division of peoples because of differences?
No, but do they promote unity on the basis of equality? If the Federation is presented as being superior ('our heroes', as it were), unity is achieved only when antagonists admit their error and acquiesce to the protagonist. That is not understanding and does not seem to me to be true peace.--StAkAr Karnak 00:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, you did *NOT* maintain the meaning of the questions. Promoting violence is *NOT* not peace. Promotion of division is *NOT* not promoting unity. They are very grey terms and the wording of the terms is not intended to be negated such as you've done.
Secondly, of course ST has a US bias.....it's MADE in the US. I certainly hope you are not expecting ST to cast Russians or Indians. As such, it is much more likely to be US-centric and influenced by american culture.
Finally, you haven't even come close to convincing me of why "while helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable. Cburnett 03:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Peace and understanding" are "very grey terms". That's what I'm getting at.
Star Trek "has a US bias". Bingo. "While helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable because it is United States-POV. Why not say that "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading western ideals."? Wouldn't that be accurate and NPOV?--StAkAr Karnak 14:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So you're saying western ideals do not include peace and understanding. And, no, it's not more accurate. I don't recall ST ever having fast food, nor anything resembling materialism. Cburnett 15:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying western concepts of peace and understanding are a matter of opinion.
Perhaps "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading western views of peace and understanding."
I want to acknowledge the belief that Trek displays these concepts while stating that it is biased toward a POV.
As far as fast food and materialism, I do not claim that the Federation corresponds equally to the US in every aspect. The ideals in question are those on peace and understanding.--StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the end, the "peace and understanding" are defined in canon of the show. There is no need to qualify it to anything else. They won't match western ideals and, as such, would be completely inaccurate to say they are.
If you want a "forum" to expound upon what ST stands for then start Star Trek ideals or Star Trek culture or something. But you best not make it about just your views of what "peace and understanding" mean. For example, the very low-key of materialism of Federation and the complete materialistic culture of Ferengi; Klingons' jump to violence (much more so in Enterprise than the other series); etc. Cburnett 19:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who added the "helping to spread peace and understanding" bit to the article originally. I used those words because I can remember countless times in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (and even a few times in ENT) when Our Heroes resolved a conflict with diplomacy rather than phasers, and emphasized unity and cooperation instead of subterfuge and aggression. TNG in particular had more than its fair share of episodes where Picard mediated between warring races. In the Trek of more recent years, these issues have taken on more shades of grey, but I'd still say they're the rule more than the exception. Peace and understanding are imprecise terms, yes, but that's okay because Star Trek has represented these ideals in lots of ways. - Brian Kendig 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Having just watched the TNG episode Silicon Avatar, here's a quote regarding the destruction of the crystalline entity:

Doctor: I don't understand, why are we pursuing the entity if not to destroy it?
Picard: We're not hunters, Doctor, nor is it our role to exact revenge.
D:: What do you propose? We track it down, greet it warmly, ask if it would mind terribly not ravaging other planets?
P: I don't deny that it may be necessary to fire on it, but I look on that as a last resort.
D: Why? Why not just kill it?
P: I want to try and communicate with it.
D: What?
P: We know from our own experience that our shields will protect us, so long as we're in no danger, I will make every effort to communicate.
D: To what end?
P: If we can determine what it's needs are, we might find other sources to supply it.
D: It's needs are to slaughter people by the thousands. It is nothing but a giant killing machine.
P: Doctor, the sperm whale on Earth devoures millions of cuttlefish as it roams the oceans. It is not evil — it is feeding. The same may be true of the entity.
D: That would be small comfort for those who have died. Defeat it. We're not talking cuttlefish, we're talking about people
P: I would argue that the crystalline entity has as much right to be here as we do.

Sounds like peace and understanding to me. Cburnett 08:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Vulcan comment

There's a question regarding Spock on Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek) for those who wish to contribute.--StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fan-made productions

I think they deserve their own article. Star Trek fan productions perhaps? Cburnett 00:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if they need a separate article since they are covered in Star Trek other storylines already, so perhaps that article could be expanded instead? 23skidoo 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, didn't look there. And it's Star Trek, other storylines for the record. :)
I propose they be deleted from Star Trek and the most notable ones (I have no clue which are) under Star Trek#Other storylines. Cburnett 18:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Movie summaries

I think the movies section should be broken down into short summaries just like what is done for the series. Objections/thoughts? Cburnett 18:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as they don't duplicate too much of what is in the separate film articles, I have no objection. BTW how long doe it take for the powers that be to make a decision regarding Featured Article status? That ominious "candidate for removal" notice has been up there for weeks. 23skidoo 18:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Duplication only to the extent that the series does. A quick non-spoiler paragraph plot outline and the series cast that star in the movie (or something else) and possibly a screenshot. If I were wanting to find out more about a specific movie ("I saw a movie that had whales in it but don't know which it is") then I wouldn't want to sift through all of them to find it. Cburnett 18:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's what I meant. And since the TV series blurbs pretty much have eliminated discussions re: popularity, controversy, etc. it's probably good to avoid same in the movie summaries (though of course these matters can be and are discussed elsewhere in the article). I tweaked the intro to reference the fact early planning for Trek XI is underway, and that European releases continued to number the films past STVI. 23skidoo 03:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ST universe discussion

I think one of the big things missing from the article is a discussion of the optimism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that is the basis of ST. Since my arguing buddy, StAkAr Karnak, didn't pick up on my suggestion I think we need a Star Trek ideals or Star Trek culture with a short discussion in Star Trek.

Thoughts of topical inclusion?

  • Starfleet's lack of concern for material
  • Ferengi's drive for material
  • Klingon's blood lust
  • How can Star Trek not even have a *link* to Prime Directive

Cburnett 03:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think each of these qualities are best discussed on the page for the particular society/group. (ex. Ferengi - section about materialism, etc).--StAkAr Karnak 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Cburnett 20:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

How many episodes?

I previously wrote that there are 725 episodes in the franchise; a number we can now calculate because of ENT's cancellation. I neglected to count "Endgame" and "These Are the Voyages" as 2 episodes each, so that brings our total to 727.

For anyone that would like to check my math: TOS=80 (including "The Cage"), TAS=22, TNG=178, DS9=176, VOY=172, and ENT=99.--StAkAr Karnak 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting definition of "episode." startrek.com considers two-parters (even if shown originally as one such as pilots) as two episodes but DVDs consider (e.g., amazon [5]) them as one episode. I think clarification of "episode" is necessary. Same story line (not to be confused with story arcs) or smallest unit of playing (~1 hour on TV)? If we go with the former, two parters are one episode, which brings another problem of two-parters spanning seasons like TNG did for several seasons. Cburnett 20:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Although initially shown as two-hour episodes, productions such as "Endgame" are rerun as 2 separate episodes. FWIW, I think each has its own production number as well. You mention cliffhanger two-parters, and I think these are a precedent for counting all two-parters as separate episodes, given their later episodic broadcasts. The exception would be "The Cage", because I don't think it has ever been presented in two parts (not counting "The Menagerie I & II").--StAkAr Karnak 21:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still think a clarification is necessary on the main page as to exactly what an episode is. Cburnett 21:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
IMO I think it should be based upon the original broadcast format. In other words, any episodes that were originally aired as two-hour installments (i.e. Encounter at Farpoint, Emissary, Broken Bow, etc.) should be considered one episode, but episodes originally aired in two installments but later combined into two hour episodes (which I've heard was done with some TNG episodes for European release) should count as two. This requires a bit of research, since Voyager in particular aired a number of two-hour episodes. On the other hand, UPN has also taken two unrelated episodes and aired them as a two-hour special as well -- it will happen with the last two episodes of Enterprise -- and these should be considered separate episodes since they were not produced with the intent of being shown as one episode. I think that makes sense. 23skidoo 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that should be simple to figure out. Just go through the episode guides at startrek.com and see the air date (or just look here at WP since that's where I copy air dates from). If they're the same then take one away from the total production count. Cburnett 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Correction to my previous calculation; there were only 98 episodes of ENT, since "These Are The Voyages" was only one hour. This brings the grand total to 726.--StAkAr Karnak 18:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does Broken Bow count as one episode or two? It'll be syndicated as a 2-parter. 23skidoo 19:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I prefer to count two-hour "telefilms" as two-episodes (as they air or presumably will air in syndication). Most of the episode guides, including the semi-canon Encyclopedia use this method, and the production numbers used on the shows reflect this as well. It also gives a nice round number in the statement:
"Star Trek originated as a television series in 1966 There have been five live action Star Trek series and an animated series, altogether comprising (as of May 2005) a total of 725 individual aired episodes (not including the original unaired pilot) and thirty seasons worth of television."
(Yeah, I'm the one who added that a few months back.) (And OK, that's not really "round", but it's a multiple of 25, which is pretty cool.)
Seriosuly, though, I think the production numbers are enough to confirm this. Most telefilms were given two sets of production numbers ("Encounter at Farpoint" was 726 and 101/102 if memory serves) and a gap for the two was created between other production numbers. In addition, clipped episodes were created with two sets of opening/end credits for each (and a few scenes trimmed to make up the time), so I think it's fair to count them as two.
The telefilms that I remember were "Encounter at Farpoint", "All Good Things...", "Emissary", "The Way of the Warrior", "What You Leave Behind", "Caretaker", "Dark Frontier", "Flesh and Blood", "Endgame", and "Broken Bow". I think "The Killing Game" aired with only one set of credits, but was actually just clipped by UPN to create the appearance of a single episode. (The DVDs confirm the list I give here as accurate. Odd trivia: No two live-action series had the same amount of telefilms [0, 2, 3, 4, 1].)
One way to put it would be 10 telefilms, 705 other aired episodes, and the unaired original pilot, making for a total of 715 hours of commercial television. (Misusing commercial here to mean "with commercials", and accounting for the 30 minute animated episodes. And I'm making the very dubious step of counting "The Cage" as an hour with commercials.)
Of course, if it's that big a deal, maybe we should cut the numbers entirely, but I'd really rather keep them. --Roger McCoy 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek XI article?

Since there have been media reports and statements from Trek producers in recent weeks to the effect that a Trek XI film is in the early planning stages, with a script writer and general premise already decided, should a Star Trek XI article be started? It could follow the format of Casino Royale (2006 movie) which divides things into confirmed reports and unconfirmed media reports. Thoughts? 23skidoo 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It would create an article for other articles to link to and a redirect when the article is moved to the full title. Cburnett 06:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting articles on races

A user took the Gorn article and turned it into a redirect to List of Star Trek races, deleting the content in the process. I can see it being done with smaller articles on obscure races referenced in the canon, but the Gorn is a pretty major part of Trek lore and the article was pretty detailed, so I reverted this change. There seems to be a number of articles being so deleted without going through the Votes for deletion protocol. If anyone has a races article they've created, or contributed to, you might want to check and see if it still exists, or if it has been made into a redirect. 23skidoo 01:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[6] Indrian has been consolidating a lot of character/races into a single article.
List of races made into a redirect:
See Talk:List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters for some explanation by Indrian. Cburnett
I've reverted a number of them. As I say, having a small article on a minor race redirected is one thing, but there are some major articles that have been eliminated.23skidoo 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that WP:FICT is semi-policy and there people that disagree with it. I am one of them. You can't make a gray spectrum into black and white without controversy over where the line should be. WP:FICT sets the line very near one end. Cburnett 01:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
WP:FICT is only a semi-policy, true, but does seem to be a good compromise between those that want this stuff deleted and those that want it kept. No information is lost and someone searching for a particular race or character will be able to find it easily through redirects. As for the gorn article, I did treat this differently because the material was all fanon (at least, the article itself and its talk page identifies it as such). If a wikipedia article is supposed to be factual and verifiable, it should not have made up stuff in it even if it is made up stuff that a large portion of the community likes quite a bit. If I am mistaken and this is not strictly fanon and is actually from a non-canonical source such as the animated series or the novel line, two sources I know little about, then I apoligize. However, if it is fanon, I stand by my move to eliminate the information. If I put a line in an article on Calvin Coolidge that he conquered Mexico and outlawed drinking milk because someone had written an amusing story in which he did just that, it would be considered vandalism and properly eliminated. I see no difference when it comes to a backstory created by fans of a fictional species. I also disagree that any major articles were eliminated. Some major races were merged, but only when the articles were relatively small. I was not touching Cardassian or Romulan, or Klingon, or even Augment. If Betazoid or El Aurian were to stay and later get bigger, no one would be preventing these articles from being broken out again. Indrian 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I'm not even going to address that horrible analogy. Cburnett 03:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
It was supposed to be a bad analogy. I do not think fanon belongs. Have you read the Gorn article? There is some pretty silly stuff in the fanon section (though not as ridiculous as my analogy), assuming it was just made up for the fun of it, and you can correct me if it was not. I realize now that I failed to catch that the section below the fanon was from a published non-canon source and do apoligize for that oversight and accidental elimination of that material. That is what we have article histories and reverst for.Indrian 04:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
My comment about the FICT policy (which I never heard of until today) has been made in the appropriate place. In terms of the fanon issue, according to the Wikipedia Project Star Trek article (I'm too busy to look up the direct link to it) states fanon should be noted as such but it doesn't prohibit it from being included. Some faith should be placed in regular editors such as Cburnett and myself (to name only two) who keep close tabs on many Trek articles and can and do jump in to make the appropriate corrections and reversions. If someone added to the T'Pol article that she was a dancing green elf from Alpha Centauri, it would exist in the article only so long as it takes someone like me to notice it. 23skidoo 14:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some misunderstanding over WP:FICT. First, please note that it is not policy but a guideline, and that it was established by heavy consensus after a public discussion that ran for weeks. This is mentioned on the FICT page, even if Cburnett overlooked it.
  • WP:FICT was created after a flood of relatively unknown characters (from Tolkien, Harry Potter and Pokemon, mainly) were nominated for deletion (by, I must add, a seemingly malicious user who was blocked yesterday). Generally, the outcome of those votes is to merge them. The idea behind WP:FICT, therefore, is to merge short articles into comprehensive lists (e.g. Horses_of_Middle_Earth rather than stub articles on each individual horse). This allows information to be better organized and more easily found.
  • I'm not an expert on Star Trek, but it seems to be me that important races (e.g. Vulcan, Bajorran etc) should have their own articles, and less important races (anything featured in just one or two episodes) is better accessible if kept in a List of Star Trek Races. IMHO and YMMV.
  • But anyway, people using WP:FICT as grounds for deletion of anything are clearly mistaken as to the nature of that policy. Hope that helps.

Motion pictures

I merged the films into a single table because honestly theres really no room to expand on these given that they all have their own articles and any notable information for this page would be better suited in an expanded overview of the films. As they were, they were generic (same over and over - not really criticizing quality) in that they were listed only by name, the year, and the crew. If anyone disagrees, by all means revert it. One picture was removed from the section because it couldn't fit, the information on the film series, as stated, should be expanded so that this could be brought back. K1Bond007 20:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm still learning how "prettytable" works. Is there any way to narrow it a tad so that the image of the Enterprise-E can go below the Enterprise-A? I think it would look better that way than the current format that leaves the Ent-E as a bit of an orphan. Alternately, perhaps the two images can go side-by-side, below the header and above the lead paragraph for the section. I don't know how to make images go side-by-side properly. 23skidoo 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Thats not "prettytable". Pretty table is just a preset style. The length of the table is totally dependent of the information found inside of it. I shortened the names of the films to fix this. (ex. being Star Trek III: The Search for Spock -> The Search for Spock). I think the image we have of the current Enterprise needs to be replaced with a higher quality and more adaptable size. Then hopefully it won't look so out of place. I'll see what I can get from one of my DVDs. K1Bond007 23:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
My bad - I thought there was some difference in width coding with the style. Anyway, it looks better. Of course there's now a bit of blank space. Perhaps there's a possibility of adding images of other vessels from the movies (i.e. V'Ger, the USS Grissom, the STIV probe), or alternately character shots? (BTW my computer problems appear to have been rectified (fingers crossed). 23skidoo 23:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

DS9 console game

  • there was also a DS9 game for the Sega Genesis, I think the you played Odo or Sisko ... maybe someone will add that (131.130.121.106 16:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

New Voyages additions

I know there's a separate page for ST fan-made series and items, but New Voyages bears the distinction of endorsement from Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. and so deserves a mention on this page as well. ElKabong

And then Takei endorses another fan series so someone decides it deserves mention here. And Nichols endorses some other series so someone decides it deserves mention here. And so on and so forth. And next thing you know we have a great big long screed about fan productions. Let's just keep the fan productions on Star Trek, other storylines. AlistairMcMillan 14:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

References???

Are there any references, like books, documentaries, etc that can be included in the bottom of the page? I don't know any particularly "central" ones... maybe Gene Roddenberry's biography... (criteria for FA status anyway). Also, is there an article that describes the fan culture of Star Trek? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There is the Trekkie article. There are a whack of reference books out there, though. Star Trek may well be the most written about series in history. I'll dig up a few and see what I can add. Someone may need to tweak the formatting as I'm not sure what Wikipedia style is for references. 23skidoo 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
To create wikistyled references for inclusion in articles the easy way, go to wikibib put in your information and press the button. It makes a formatted citation for you which you can copy into your article. Rick Boatright 04:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Too late. But there aren't overly many so if I have time I'll try and run them through the template (of if anyone else wants to, feel free). Although FA seems to require the references be included within the main article, I think a separate article on Star Trek reference works would also be worth creating. An excellent resource for checking release dates and publishers is The Complete Starfleet Library website. Most of the books I added just now are ones I own, but I added a few additional titles I've yet to obtain from checking this site. I tried to list books that covered the entire franchise, or the start of fandom, except for a couple of seminal works that were based upon the making of TOS alone. 23skidoo 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Umm well I hate to say this, but none of the references listed in the actual Reference section as far as I can find are actually "referenced" (keyword here) in the article. This is a section where specific information throughout the article is cited (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). What you've added is just supplemental reading material. Additionally, I disagree with the creation of a Star Trek references page considering what I've said above. The creation of a "List of Star Trek books" (perhaps a better title) type page, however, would be fine. Books that analyze Trek films, novels, the franchise etc.. ones like those you listed. K1Bond007 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe "Further reading" would be a better header for this list, as I don't think it's possible to create a bibliography (which is what is being asked for here) in such a collaborative effort. Most of what I write is the result of personal knowledge, not going through a book, except in the case of news-related items which are usually annotated with a link to the page from which the information appears. It would be impossible, for example, to cite references for Enterprise because, to date, no non-fiction book has been published in which that series is featured. My personal knowledge of the Star Trek franchise comes from books such as Inside Star Trek and The Making of Star Trek, the latter I last read 20 years ago. Many of the books listed have been passively cited in the article, but if you want a quoting of chapter and verse, there's not enough time to go through them all.23skidoo 13:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Going through the list for FA status

A featured article should:

  1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
  2. Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. Read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
    • Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details.
    • Accurate: Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).
    • Stable: Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day.
    • Well-written: Compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles.
  3. Be uncontroversial (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles) and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).
  4. Comply with the standards set in the style manual, as well as relevant WikiProjects. This includes having a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic, headings and have a substantial, but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
  5. Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.

What I think we need to work on:

  1. Comprehensive: Further reading should include a list of articles that are majority important that have not been covered in the article. An example to this is Trekkies. Stuff like inconsistencies of Star Trek, arguments against Star Trek, etc... anything that will engage a reader's interest that is very much closely related to this article that hasn't been discussed in the article itself. No reference to Desilu Productions???
  2. Accurate: May need a bit of fixing...

-- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

First of all we are pushing Wikipedia to its limits with this many entries. This is hard work and it is imperative we have to work together.

  • Episodes should each be seperate articles, preferably in a name space sceme such as Star Trek:Voyager:(whatever episode) or Star Trek:Voyager/(episode number) - (episode name)
  • Serries should be seperate articles, so should movies. Star Trek should be an introduction to Star Trek universe and a disambiguation page to other pages. Star Trek is not something you can fit in a page.
  • Many of the star trek articles do not follow a standard sceme, a unified and easy to folow sceme should be incorporated. There are two Defiants for example, I had taken the liberty to create a disambig page and seperate the two ships properly.
  • Ship names: Shipname (Ship number)
    Ex: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
This is not the case all the time.

Cat chi? 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It think the name scheme suggested would be a bit difficult to execute given the dozens (if not hundreds) of articles that have already been created that would need to be renamed or moved. I think that's more trouble than it's worth. Better to simply add "... (ENT episode)" or "... (TNG episode)" or whatever to the relative few episode articles that have not yet been title-formatted that way. Having hundreds of articles all starting with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" would probably annoy the admins. I agree the episodes should be separate articles, and they should all follow a similar format. I've seen some indication of this already being done. 23skidoo 05:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The objective here is to cover as much as we can within reason. A typical style of organization of the Wikipedia is that if it can not fit into a main article, it's branched off. The problem we have is that so much of the subject Star Trek has been broken off to so many articles, we've lost the ability to focus where the root branches are. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

We should be linking to the most important links... not something like TOS TrekMUS. Stuff like that should go under Trekkies. The problem is that we need to attempt to separate the canon stuff from the fan fiction stuff. I believe that we should attempt to focus on the official authorized stuff from Paramount. I think what I'm a bit disappointed in is the history behind the franchise which should be covered, in a summary or in length in this article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a list of things I think should be covered somewhere:

  • History of Star Trek (as opposed to History in Star Trek)
  • Star Trek Merchandise (authorized, fan fiction, etc)
  • Star Trek Fandom (cite Fan sites, Fan RPGs, etc) -> TOS TrekMUS should fit nicely here.
  • A split between the material of Star Trek (the canon stuff) and the material on the history of Star Trek
  • Actors of Star Trek (Maybe focus an article on that?) Specifically, perhaps talk a bit on key cast members, or split that up into Cast of <insert series here> articles?

From Star Trek Further Reading:

This stuff should be included INTO the article itself. Not as a list. We should attempt to write in the links. As it stands, I feel that the article would stand better with a rewrite. The reason I can't really start is that I don't really know all the Star Trek articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Starting a draft here. Star Trek/temp -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Some other key things to note about: Exploration of current culture, parallelism of current events, depiction against certain things such as racism. Part of the thing is when I read the Star Trek article is how much it seems we assume of the reader. Does the average person know who Rick Berman is? Not likely. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if including the episode lists into the main article would be a good idea. With 700+ entries, it would make things a bit list heavy and I have learned that the "judges" for FA status do not like lists. The article James Bond was rejected for FA status and one of the reasons given was because it included a list of all the Bond books, despite this being considered vital information. Length is also an issue - if the article becomes too long it can be detrimental to it being selected. I personally wish the FA rules could be changed so that sets of articles could be nominated, rather than just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. In many respects, the Trek franchise is a huge jigsaw puzzle, and the main Star Trek article is simply the box. 23skidoo 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that. I meant that the links above which were a list on Star Trek Further Reading should be included into the article. Not the pages which are lists themselves. Something like: Star Trek: The Original Series made up a total of 80 episodes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
My bad. That makes sense. 23skidoo 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's some ideas for sentences:

-- AllyUnion (talk)

"light Next Generation"

From the article:

Due to its generally darker theme, many fans of the generally light Next Generation failed to return as an audience.

Um...I object to both the idea the NexGen was "light", to the suggestion that DS9's "generally darker theme" was a reason for NexGeners "not returning", and even to the idea that NexGeners didn't "return". I think that DS9 started to lose its "mass audience", but true NexGen fans would hardly have been "scared away" by DS9's themes. Anyone have thoughts here? func(talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it could be said that DS9 had a rough start... as with any show... and that it really picked up in the latter seasons. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the light vs. dark was an issue when it came to why DS9 wasn't as popular as TNG. I know the anti-Berman backlash was starting around this time, while some people rejected DS9 because Roddenberry didn't create it. It was a darker show in terms of the fact all the characters weren't luvy duvy and some people didn't like that. I agree that the mass audience started to fade because, for one thing DS9 and TNG were on the air at the same time and there was some feeling of overkill (this was years before audiences became used to having multiple franchises such as L&O and CSI on the air). Interestingly, the headlines about "is Star Trek dead?" that erupted over the last year or so with ENT were basically carbon copies of similar doom-and-gloom headlines that were published during the first season of DS9. 23skidoo 19:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In repsonse to Ally, there are other people who were fans of TNG, that preferred the earlier DS9 seasons (while Piller was the driving force on the writing team) and lost interest in the last year or two. AlistairMcMillan 19:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, DS9 was more of a "serial", whereas the TNG episodes tended to stand a lone on their own. Tomservo3000 07:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When did Star Trek first go into Syndication?

I've been googling a bit and can't seem to find an actual date as to when Star Trek first went into Syndication. The Wkipedia entry says that it went into syndication after its prime time run ended, but not a specific time. Did it go into syndication the next year? If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the main wikipedia entry when it mentions going into syndication.

1970. I think it was Nielson who started doing demographics in addition to their ratings the same year (a year after cancellation) and came the conclusion that Star Trek was very popular amongst young males. K1Bond007 02:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha confusion

So I was recently thinking...why does Wikipedia link to MA on almost every ST article (I'll admit I've added them myself) but MA doesn't have the courtesy to link back?

I don't really care that MA is ST-only, that's irrelevant. For one, List of Star Trek: TNG episodes beats the pants off of MA's list.

A little quid pro quo.

What is everyone's thought on having MA link to WP or else remove MA links from WP?

I'm not wanting to get all vindictive about it (IMDB doesn't link to WP) but MA people have been preying on WP for exposure:

and I'm sure plenty of stuff I don't know about. Cburnett 07:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting...not a single comment... hmm. Cburnett 16:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see too much of a problem with regards to linking. As you say, we also put IMDb links in with no return on investment. I think it just needs to be kept clear that Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia. I only get annoyed when suggestions are made to eliminate Wikipedia Trek-related articles in favor of the other site. I see no reason why the links can't remain as long as they are treated no different than any other external link (I'm referring to the controversy we had regarding the MA banner a few weeks ago). 23skidoo 17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should note that your categorisation of the users mentioned above as "MA people" is incorrect and rather insulting to our community. Neither the user putting episodes up for deletion, nor the incivil user - who also created the "move" template - are registered users at MA; and I find the idea that we are "preying" on WP for exposure frankly ludicrous.
We don't have the courtesy to link back? Maybe not on Trek-related articles - why link to an article that contains roughly the same information but looks prettier, in the case of the TNG episode list? In general, IMO, external links should expand on the subject in some form or other - but most articles that are "real-world" have a Wikipedia link as usually the only external link (If they don't, it's usually added later - in fact, this brought to my attention that there are a few that should be included, such as Earth). See Albert Einstein, boson, San Francisco, and many more. PS: the link namespace isn't something we create, the MediaWiki software does it automatically. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, fine, "pro-MA people" or "anti-Star-Trek-on-WP people". If you want to argue semantics, then so be it, but no need to take offense.
If MA doesn't link to WP because they contain "roughly the same information", then why should WP link to MA? Or is there some magical way that WP can be roughly the same as MA but MA can, simultaneously, be different enough to not warrant a link to WP? :) I'm thoroughly confused by this point. Cburnett 18:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't trying to argue semantics, it just seemed like your categorisation of these people who seem more to be "anti-fancruft" (God, I hate that term) was as representative of users at MA, which seemed to me to be somewhat non-sequitous, and yes, offensive.
That was only my point on your example of List of TNG episodes, since they are both essentially the same article on MA and WP - beyond that, what I followed up with is more the point I was making "[in] general, IMO, external links should expand on the subject in some form or other". MA expands on what WP writes in terms of more detailed information on how the subject relates in the Trek universe, WP expands on "real-world" subjects that MA can only discuss in a Trek context. Which is why reciprocal linking isn't necessarily a good thing - example, if MA linked to Benjamin Sisko, it wouldn't tell the user who followed that link anything more, but less, whereas a WP user following the link to MA would get a more detailed biographical account.
I'm working off an eight-hour shift here, so my points may not exactly be as coherent as I intend them to be, and I apologise for that ;). -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
To be pedantic, the TNG list contains more than just a list of episodes like the MA article. :)
I don't have the intention of pitting WP against MA (as I clearly stated in my opening post). From my perspective, there's a group of people (vocal minority, anti-ST people, pro-MA, MA users, whatever they *really* are) who have something against most of the ST stuff being on WP and favor MA. I think the conclusion of my assumptions are clear; and I have no problem admitting they're assumptions. For if I knew it was a mass MA user base plotting to get all ST removed from WP (or anything similar that you could come up with), then I wouldn't have asked (yada yada WP:BB) and just done it. Cburnett 18:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I know you had no intention of doing that (besides which, such a pitting would probably result in my left hand trying to attack my right :D). It just kind of riled me, coming home from a fairly bad day at work and reading it in the way that I did. Anyway, it's not a big deal. From my POV, it just needed clarification, in case people read it the same way I did. Is the main issue (links to WP) dealt with (since we do link to WP, just not in a reciprocal sense) to your satisfaction? I've brought some of this up at MA (see Ten Forward) to help further improve the inter-wiki linkage. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if I get one more link added on MA because of this then it's been worth it. :) Discussion about it is even better, though. Cburnett 20:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the links to MA, unless they link to WP. --20px Spinboy 20:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how linkbacks are relevant to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should list another site in its "External Links" section if it meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:External links; whether or not that site links back to us has no bearing on the suitability of that site. However, I don't believe that memory Alpha satisfies any of the points in the "What should be linked to" section, and as such, I see no point to linking to Memory Alpha from anything other than the main Star Trek article here. - Brian Kendig 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


<idiot mode. OMG OMG IMDB DON'T LINK BACK REMOVE ALL OF THEIR LINKS. </idiot mode>

Anyone who beleives that Memory Alpha is trying to get trek related pages of wikipedia has had to much pot. Memory Alpha is a Star Trek Encylopedia. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia. Anything similar between these two? Good now that we got past that point lets go to the next.

Must Memory Alpha link back to Wikipedia?

No.

How many times have we linked to IMDB,BBC,CNN and god knows how many other and they still haven't linked back? None. Atleast Memory Alpha link back to us. Now shut your big trap and let them do what they do best. Write good Trek articles. I must say their quality is much better then this one.

Star Trek IV Pizza Parlor

I posted this question a long time ago at the article about Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I never got an answer over there so am reposting it here. I am very curious. -Husnock 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I checked up on this for you. According to Leonard Nimoy's commentary on the DVD it was a set entirely built in San Francisco on a sound stage. No such location actually exists. K1Bond007 18:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Images in this article

There appears to be a rather heavy bias towards images of the Enterprise on this article: 8 Enterprise images, 1 DS9 image. I would have expected at least some of: Kirk, Spock, Bones, Klingons, Picard. Anyway, just a suggestion :) Tim! (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The images only reflect the ship or station (DS9) of the show. K1Bond007 18:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

I really don't think it is necessary to say that Star Trek "along with Star Wars" is one of the most popular SF franchises. What about BSG? Doctor Who? Stargate? If we want to name-drop, there's no way to do justice to each fanbase. I think it is enough to say that Star Trek is one of the most popular SF franschises, and link SF franchises to a list of franchises elsewhere.--StAkAr Karnak 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


Most definitely. I had contemplated this over the past few days after seeing your post. I believe that just saying "one of the most popular SF franchises" says a great deal. The names you mentioned: Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who (most definitely), Stargate are influential to today's science fiction scene. I took the opportunity to look at the entry on Star Wars and didn't find any mentioning of Star Trek, though I didn't really delve too deeply into the content. Still, I think the line should be removed or, at the very least, added to Star Wars' entry, too. - DrachenFyre 23:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

fixed some minor error

added the line about 11 motion pictures beign made aswell. corrected the total number of episodes to 722 (it was listed as 725)

Number of episodes: TOS 80 (including the pilot) TAS 22 TNG 78 DS9 172 VOY 172 ENT 98

Films 11

someone should maybe add an entry at the bottom with listing of the films and links to pages

Well first off there aren't 11 motion pictures. There are only 10. Having a script currently being written does not count as a film that has been "produced".
79+22+178+176+172+98= 725. Count the original unaired pilot and you get 726. K1Bond007 19:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Table of films

I have modified the table of films as I thought it was too long. I have made use of the horizontal space so that all ten films can be seen on one screen. I know it's not perfect, hopefully someone can tidy it up a bit to make it a bit nicer! Marky1981 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Big problem with character's rank

Hello all. I just noticed an anon user has been going around adding to every single Star Trek character page the term "at final apperance" or "at death" after each rank. To me, this is pointless. There is also a measure of original research, espically with listing ranks of Star Trek Enterprise characters that were only discussed as happening in th future but never actually seen. See this link for what I'm talking about. This will need major reversions to fix. Any suggestions? -Husnock 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert them. I agree it's pointless. 23skidoo 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
OK i was making these changes i just didnt log in! but do you understand what im trying to do? 'current rank' is wrong and this is anything but pointless please dont revert.--Noahmj 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is it wrong? We're talking about fictional characters, none of whom are scheduled to be even born for another 150 years or so. It's no different than changing the wording to read "Will be a captain" or what-have-you. Please explain the point of adding "at death", etc. I don't have a big problem with it on the articles for characters whose deaths have been shown on screen (Kirk, Yar, Tucker) but even though it can be assumed Malcolm Reed (for example) is dead by the time of TOS and later I fail to see the point. Cheers. 23skidoo 14:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have removed all of the "at final apperance"/"at death"/"last time we saw them"/etc from the character pages. The anon ip address who posted this is now involoved in vandalism at the Tom DeLay so this looks like a one time thing by an inexperianed editor. Hopefully the issue will not return. -Husnock 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ST :RANT

In whole I have enjoyed every aspect of Star Trek and want it continue and succeed in the next installment but hear me when I cry "Don't make a horrible Intro, like Enterprise ever ever again" It had to be the only thing that has made me not want to reguarly watch ENT.

Faith in the heart ppl

AJ

PS Bring back Wil Wheaton I liked his character and his [[7]] website.

Star Trek or Star Trek ?

Hello to you all! Many of the ST articles I've perused (and edited thusly) recently contain both forms — i.e., Star Trek or Star Trek, italicised or not — to describe the 'ST universe'. As such, I believe this underlines a slightly significant issue – of (in)consistency or of (not) having a standard – regarding various Star Trek references on Wikipedia pages in general. As well, various Star Trek reference works (of varying canonicity) use Star Trek (italics) when referring to the universe or generally; this, however, is likely corporate self-promotion by Paramount.

We needn't do this in Wikipedia, though, given the audience of Wikipedia (web visitors and users) and inherent popularity of the term and franchise. As well, systemic italics may confuse users regarding the precise topic matter: for example, if Star Trek is used in a general capacity but is inferred to mean the original Star Trek series (in actuality, Star Trek was the proper name of the original series, et al.), etc.

So: consistent with similar posts (and similar discussions, e.g., here), I propose usage of Star Trek (plain) in Wikipedia for general references to the universe, franchise, or phenomenon, and the use of Star Trek /: The Original Series (italics) only when referring to the original series (and similarly, where it appears in a name of a movie, production, etc.). If this is acceptable, I encourage users to make such editions on related pages when they come across them. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, my good man. Let's reserve the italics (Star Trek) for specific movies or TV shows. Plain roman (Star Trek) is good enough for the phenomonon, the universe, etc. Uncle Ed 18:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

TOS OFFICER RANK INSIGNIAS

Which Earth Navy(ies), were the TOS rank insignias (wrist stripes) based on? Mightberight/wrong 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)- PS: I meant no disrespect to Wiki Policy , the previous Star Trek question was my own, I just wanted to edit it to a less cumbersome form.

I beg your pardon -- for some reason the edit was indicated as being from an anonymous IP address so I had no way of knowing it was you. (I've found myself logged out by accident a few times, too, which results in me doing edits under my IP number instead of my username). 23skidoo 23:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's O'k', no harm done, by the way, would you know the answer to my Rank Insignia question? Mightberight/wrong 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

Hey there; the ranks and bands are roughtly based on those of the US Navy. Here's a great article that discusses the various ranks/insignia in Starfleet. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the help E Pluribus Anthony, live long and prosper. Mightberight/wrong 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tables

TV shows

Years Series Name Abbrev. Episodes Notes
1966-1969 Star Trek TOS 79 excluding unaired pilot
1973-1974 Star Trek TAS or TAA 22 animated
1978 Star Trek: Phase II 0 not produced
1987-1994 Star Trek: The Next Generation TNG 178
1993-1999 Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DS9 176
1995-2001 Star Trek: Voyager VOY or VGR 172
2001-2005 Star Trek: Enterprise ENT 98
725 TOTAL

Why doesn't this table count "The Cage"? It is most definitely a Star Trek episode, and I don't see how anyone could question its canonicity. This brings the count to 726.--StAkAr Karnak 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Movies

Year Movie Title Director
1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Robert Wise
1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Nicholas Meyer
1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Leonard Nimoy
1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Leonard Nimoy
1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier William Shatner
1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Nicholas Meyer
1994 Star Trek: Generations David Carson
1996 Star Trek: First Contact Jonathan Frakes
1998 Star Trek: Insurrection Jonathan Frakes
2002 Star Trek: Nemesis Stuart Baird

Re:Continuation of Enterprise

The following text was originally posted in the Continuation of Enterprise subsection, but I suspect the user intended it for the Talk page. 23skidoo 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed that Enterprise wasn't allowed to continue. Although debatable whether or not audience numbers had declined, the last 2 seasons saw a lot of changes behind the scenes and with the quality of the writing. I suspect UPN set up the series to fail. Had ratings expectations that no series could reach. The audience was also to blame. Many knew that this would be the last series so found hard to get involved with the stories. If the series went the whole 7 or longer seasons what would happen after that. UPN got what's coming to them for giving up on Enterprise so soon. The ratings and quality for the current crop of series with the exception of 1 has been pathetic. I am hoping very soon network execs will get their heads of their butts and realize it is better to have steady moderately high ratings with a loyal audience. They had that with all the series.--Tjkphilosofe 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Yes my intention is for this to be open for discussion. Oops about where I originally put it.--Tjkphilosofe 07:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They did not have moderately high ratings, nor did they have an especially loyal audience, aside from a very core group of fans. But then, every single show always has a core group of fans. Here's the linky to the audiences Star Trek Ratings. I don't understand why I keep reading these claims about audience ratings that are demonstrably not true.--Nephandus 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)I am in total agreement. You cannot believe the ratings that UPN released to show how well Enterprise did. I keep trying to point out that there was another reason for canceling the series other than poor ratings. However others quote UPN press release. These people who beieve those numbers probably also still believe that Santa actually exist. First thing to remember is that networks lie.--Tjkphilosofe 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion Pictures...

It says "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise. It has a tentative release date of 2007, and it's been rumoured that Nicholas Meyer(Director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) will be helming this new venture." but this is incorrect. He didn't direct The Voyage Home that was Leonard Nimoy. But, I cant seem to find the edit section to remove it. Its not under the sub-heading edit for "motion pictures" nor is that text contained in the main page.

Please sign your comments. You must be working from a cached version of the page as all this speculation was already removed by another editor a day or so ago. 23skidoo 15:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
This is not speculation: "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise." I placed this information on the page after such was reported by TrakNation some months ago (As revealed by the "1" source link). I don't know why the rest was added by someone else.--StAkAr Karnak 21:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to put it back. I was referring to the Meyers stuff, though the lack of any official announcement by Paramount still places Trek 11 into "Crystal Ball" territory which is why it does not qualify for its own article yet. 23skidoo 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackson Roykirk vs. Jackson Roy Kirk

A user has been changing the spelling of Jackson Roykirk (a character from the TOS episode The Changeling to "Jackson Roy Kirk". I've never encountered this spelling in all my years as a Trek fan, not to mention it makes no sense since it would suggest the guy was a relative of JT Kirk, which he clearly isn't. I thought I'd put the comment on the general Trek page so that someone can take a look at this. 23skidoo 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I just moved, so my two TOS books are packed away somewhere, but when I dig them out I will see if there is a reference there. At this point I can't provide proof. However, in The Changeling (Star Trek), when Mr. Spock shows the slide of Nomad's creator he clearly says, "Jackson...Roy...Kirk. Brilliant, but erratic..." I have a theory: James Blish, who was not the most careful writer when it comes to Trekker-level details, just assumed it was the name "Roykirk" -- and Memory Alpha has adopted that, spreading that version of the name. Which makes more sense: that Nomad -- thinking of "The Kirk" -- confused "James T." with "Jackson Roy" or "James Kirk" with "Jackson Roykirk"? Also, this is not proof, but it shows that there is disagreement about the spelling: Google search for Roykirk produces 538 results, and for Roy Kirk it's 208. BCorr|Брайен 13:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually use Blish as the ultimate source since he often used early versions of scripts, anyway. But the fact none of other reference works, official and otherwise, published over the years have ever used this spelling would suggest that Roykirk is official. The Spock quote means little since it could also be just the way Nimoy said the line. I haven't seen The Changeling in awhile but my memory is Nomad uses "The Kirk" the same way Ilia used "Kirk Unit" in TMP (which of course was a remake of Changeling). If McCoy had been captain, Nomad might have referred to him as "The McCoy", etc. I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced unless someone produces a copy of the script for The Changeling or some sort of other printed proof that the man's last name was Kirk, not Roykirk. 23skidoo 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"unless someone produces a copy of the script" -- well I guess that's pretty unlikely, isn't it? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Not as unlikely as you may think. Remember this is Trek fandom we're talking about. Not long ago a CD-ROM was issued with all the scripts for DS9 and TNG; somewhere copies of the script of The Changeling are circulating. However my statement is in part an indication of my confidence that the shooting script will reveal the spelling to be "Roykirk" since my understanding is the scripts were among the resources used by the writers of the Encyclopedia and Chronology. I just dug out my copy of "The Star Trek Compendium" by Allan Asherman and he uses "Roykirk" as well. I think there is overwhelming evidence against the "Roy Kirk" spelling. 23skidoo 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess no one's bothered looking at the startrek.com library, where it sais "Roykirk" rather than "Roy Kirk." ethernaut

Well, technically as a print/Internet source it doesn't really count per the general rule of Trek canon ... but it's as good a source as as any for this! ;-) 23skidoo 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alderaan"

There really is a planet named "Alderaan" in the Star Trek line of fictional work, which happens to be the name of the sharded planet on Star Wars. Now why did they put that there, and why would Lucasfilm permit this? Look up Alderaan on [Alpha] (the Star Trek wiki) --Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was allowed becuase Alderaan is an actual name of a location on earth. And obviously the planet is not the same exact one in both Star Wars and Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 08:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Koreas in Star Trek

Seeing that Harry Kim is Korean in descent, that had me start thinking about what happened to the Koreas between now and then. Do North and South Korea reunify under the Communist or Capitalist government? Do they stay divided to the day a single world government takes place? As I'm also half-Korean, it makes me all the more curious. Reply to my User Talk page if you wish. --Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Low rating?

How the hell can such good series as Voyager and Enterprise get low rating? are all the trek fans old ppl who dont like computer special effects or what? i think u should shame. All of u who claim to like star trek and then give it low rating, a true trek liker never gives low rating. Star trek deserves the best and nothing else.

You know I agree I don't understand why Enterprise is claimed to have done poorly in the ratings and some have said that Voyager had slumping ratings towards the end. Although it is possible that these individuals are only quoting network and studio execs. I believe something else was afoot. Paramount did all they could to sabotage Enterprise.

At beginning Enterprise got off to the usual slow start like TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY but as the series went along improved. Voy did extreming well towards the end.--Tjkphilosofe 10:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


They are quoting Nielsen ratings, which did confirm the executive’s viewpoints. Although, the Nielsen Ratings system is quite controversial, as only a small minority of people have Nielsen boxes, and so use of them is said not to be amazingly accurate by groups such as [8], of who have hoped to save enterprise from the beginning.

Although Enterprise did have vast improvements in its latter series, the increase in ratings was apparently not good enough for a show which costs millions to make per episode. It is easy to understand the decision from a business point of view.

Some of the stories basically became redone episodes of treks gone-by. The execs obviously thought a "rest" would bring about a creative revival in the future.....perhaps along Dr Who's lines. (Allowing them to make big money from Trek once more)

I say all this despite being a fan. The low ratings are not a surprise.....it was difficult for people to come and watch Enterprise mid season and pick up the storyline...just look at the Xindi arc to tell you that. Agent Blightsoot 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that with arc storytelling now in vogue (see 24, Alias, etc), one would expect people to have been used to dealing with jumping onto an arc. Problem is Trek never really did it before (the Dominion arc on DS9 was loose enough that one could jump on anywhere). The main failing of the Xindi arc was the lack of a "jumping on" episode at the midway point, which Alias tends to do from time to time. Another problem with ENT was it came on the heels of 600+ episodes of the franchise -- of course every conceivable plot could be compared to a previous episode because as my Shakespeare professor once said, there really are only about a half-dozen possible plots in literature anyway. I agree with you on the Nielsen ratings being controversial, especially with regards to ENT because there never was a true accounting of how many people watched it, since the weekend rerun was never counted in the overall ratings -- and that was the one people tended to see due to the preemptions and the fact ENT was up against shows that attracted a similar audience like Stargate and Smallville. Plus, there were many people who TIVO'd, taped, or outright downloaded the episodes, and Nielsen is still predicated on the assumption people sit down and watch a show as it airs; it hasn't been updated to include time-shifting and alternate viewing options; during ENT's 4 years I think I only watched it at its actual broadcast time about 30% of its run. Does this mean ENT had substantially higher viewer ship than UPN believed? I am convinced of it. Would it have been higher to the point where the show might have received better treatment by the network (and for that matter, the fanbase)? That's impossible to say. There are plenty of signs that Paramount/Viacom/CBS had grown tired of Trek and that no matter what might have happened it might have been considered time to rest the franchise (Scott Bakula claims UPN decided to cancel the show after the 4th season as early as year 2). There's precedent for this with CBS: they cancelled The Ed Sullivan Show at the top of its game because it had been on the air for 25 years and was considered stale. They also cancelled Gunsmoke for the same reason. 23skidoo 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct about neilsen ratings. It is a dinosaur. Because of my schedule I record everything and watch later. With dvrs and tivo networks never be able to get an accurate number for who is watching anything.--Tjkphilosofe 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


There was no increase in ratings. You can look at the data yourself here Star Trek Ratings.

There is no indication that Nielsen's ratings system works any differently for Voyager than it did for other more successful programs. If it was innacurate, this would be revealed as widely fluctuating ratings rather than the steady downward trend that is consistent with the drops in the other series. As for the claim that only a small percentage of viewers have Nielsen People Meters, that's only relevant if a disporportionate amount of viewers don't have them. As it turns out, the same People Meter data were replicated by a seperate sample and methodology (the diaries) in the US. In Canada, with yet another sample in a seperate country (with similar viewing habits), the data were again confirmed. Also in Canada, Nielsen's competitor - BBM Canada - also had similar numbers with its own two seperate samples and methodologies. So in total, we have a confirmed trend in two countries, across 5 samples and 4 different methodologies (US and Canada Mark 2 meters, US diaries, PM meter, US diary, BBM diary)

Nielsen does include time-shifting, as well as VCR taping. You can contact them yourself to confirm at nielsenmedia.com or nielsenmedia.ca. Also, the Tivo top 20 (created with Nielsen) available from their site, did not list Voyager or Enterprise as one of the top time-shifted programs anyway - which would be important in establishing whether or not a disporportionate amount of PVR users recorded it.

As for Bakula's claim, I was able to make the same projection of a season 3 or 4 crash by projecting the continued rate of audience bleed found in Voyager throughout Enterprise's run. Once it hit dropped below 2%, it was likely to be cancelled, and it was. No mystery, no conspiracy. It's about that simple.

I understand there are some superfans here. Let's not clutter the discussion with easily disproven conspiracy theories and libelous claims about Nielsen Media Research. --Nephandus 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Generations - fan favorite?

In the Motion Pictures section there's a bit of discussion about the "odd film rule" and someone wrote that Trek 7 (Generations) is an exception as it's a "firm fan favorite". I'm not sure if that's correct. My understanding is that the film has never been regarded very highly - in part because of Kirk's fate. While it doesn't seem to be hated as much as Nemesis, I don't agree that it can be called a "firm fan favorite". But before I delete that sentence I wanted to gauge thoughts on this. Maybe I'm wrong? 23skidoo 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall Generations ever being a fan favorite. Delete for sure. The only exception to the rule that I'm aware of is Nemesis. K1Bond007 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bloated Bridge?

As a Trek fan, there's one thing that's always caused my eyebrow to rise (like Spock's). By Star Trek VI, the Enterprise-A had, 3 Captains & 3 Commanders, Starfleet could have instantly lost 6 fine officers in one catastrophy. Should this be mentioned in the article? What do you think, fellow Trek fans. GoodDay 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like original research to me. I'd say no. K1Bond007 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Numbers

This page is already way too long, but has anyone mentioned the even numbers theory or the number 47 theory? If so feel free to delete this entry. Basically the even numbers theory suggests that even numbered Star Trek films are good 2, 4, 6, 8 being the best examples while odd numbered ones are bad 1,3,5,7,9 all not being up to snuff...The number 47, according to the 47 Society web page (which I hasten to add is a spoof), is apparently used whenever possible in NG, Voyager and DS9 as a kind of in joke about the power of an apparently random number. Again feel free to delete if this has already come up...AGM

Didn't Data use the 47 theory thingy to make his blinking realistic? SaintDante 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek canon

Is there an article on Paramount's Star Trek canon policy? If not, I'll create one. The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is hard to nail down; a brief introduction is in the Canon (fiction) article, with much more detail (where I've made recent editions) in a dedicated, existing article. I hope this is helpful. E Pluribus Anthony 09:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
My question was mainly because I know that the Voyager novels Mosaic and Pathways are considered canon, was wondering if a specific Star Trek canon article addresses this. The Wookieepedian 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah; no problem – the article summarises this. As well, head on over to the link in that article to Ex Astra Scientia; they have a different spin about the canonicity of such novels. As well, feel free to suggest or make edits to the Wp article. Live long and prosper. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Shouldn't this article have a section covering the great cultural impact the series has had? I would have thought that, it being a former featured article, would have already had that well covered. I know there are several spin-off articles on Wikipedia that cover the cultural impact of Star Trek, but shouldn't this main one have a section devoted to it? The Wookieepedian 07:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur: there should be a brief section regarding culture in the article (particularly addressing gross economic, personal, and legacy implications of the franchise, and perhaps comparisons with Star Wars), with appropriate elaboration in subarticles. E Pluribus Anthony 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, all this article does is cover the content. That's great, but it ignores the effect it all has had on eople. The Wookieepedian 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Belatedly, done and done! TY for your patience! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another issue I have...

After looking over both the sections on the TV series, and on the films, I found what I consider to be yet another major fault in this article: it lacks explanation of plot. IMHO, each section devoted to a TV series, for example, should give a brief synopsis of the show (what happens in it, who the major players are, etc). Everything else included is OK, but it looks to me as if these sections, at times, are merely collections of trivia about the shows or films, and not organized or written in a specific format. And all the section on the films seems to do, is basically explain how fans perceive the films, rather than explaining what the films are about over all, and giving general and fan reactions.

Now, E Pluribus Anthony and I have properly expanded the section on Canonicity and other stories. That's taken care of. Yet there is still not a section explaining the cultural impact and general reception the Star Trek franchise has had. Someone needs to work on that. I am still surprised, in a way, that this was featured when it was. In my opinion, it still needs a lot of work. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey; I agree. I'll craft something re. cultural impact and plot in the next few days. Qapla'! E Pluribus Anthony 10:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool. The Wookieepedian 16:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
When are you going to write this? The Wookieepedian 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm working on it ... I should have it ready tomorrow, if you're OK with that? E Pluribus Anthony 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How old is that green alien.

I saw on my watchlist that someone reverted this. It should not be in the article but I found the first part humerous.--Gbleem 06:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Toronto Police see two kinds of pedophile: Star Trek and Star Wars.

Yoikes, let's ban "ST"! It's gonna create another Karla Homolka (1 that preys on Andorian babies...). Doesn't this just prove all the claims about comics & porn creating murderers & pedophiles are bullshit? After all, as pop as "ST" is, there ought to be a plague of 'em... Not An Unbiased Observer

Time travel television series

"Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trekinalia

"Where no man..." & "to explore...seek out" & were coined by John DF (Associate Producer & Story Ed); "Space, the final frontier..." by Sam Peeples (title of the 2d pilot, for the non-Trekkers, which was DxJames Goldstone). "STTOS" won 2 Emmys. Shocked? They were for Production Design... The show, surprisingly, never got above #52 in the ratings; by Season 3, they were down by over half. It was the first 1hr color SF series in primetime for adults. It wrapped (with an episode broadcast 3 June 1969, to an 8.8 rating) on 9 Jan 1969, 1 day & US$6000 over... If only I could source it... Trekphiler 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia?

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive X#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added my vote against it. The Wookieepedian 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Western science fiction?

What's with the Western science fiction category? Looks like someone put most if not all of the Star Treks in this category, but except for a couple of episodes (Spectre of the Gun, ENT's North Star) there really hasn't been much western-style SF in Trek. Yes I know it's inspired by Wagon Train, but Star Wars was inspired by Seven Samurai and you don't see it listed in the Japanese science fiction category. Unless someone can give a good rationale for keeping the Trek titles in the category, I may just go ahead and delete it. 23skidoo 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect "western" a la "western hemisphere"/"western culture" -- not so much the wild (well, ancient) west. I make this suggestion, of course, without actually looking to see if any other non-Trek entries have also been added to the category. EEMeltonIV 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Western science-fiction is a genre of science fiction that transposes themes of American western books and film to a backdrop of futuristic space frontiers. It doesn't have anything to do with wearing cowboy hats and roping steers. It supposes that the future of space exploration will be much like the taming of the old west in the United States of America. This "frontier stories" view of the future is only one of many ways to look at space exploration, and not one that is held in high regard by many scientists and futurologists. Authors like Raymond Kurzweil, for instance, assert that humans will evolve past the need for rocket ships in the near future. --Peace Inside 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a good rationale, however if that's the case the category needs some serious vetting as it does have cowboy-style stories listed, such as Adventures of Brisco County Jr.. When I saw that was when I started questioning its validity in this context. (Nothing against Brisco County but it doesn't fit Peace Inside's description). 23skidoo 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Brisco County Jr. had a science fiction backdrop to some extent. It certainly had western themes. American western frontier themes + Science fiction backdrop = Western Science Fiction. --Peace Inside 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In what year is it set?

I'm not a Trekkie and therefore didn't know in what year the original series was set. I don't believe this information is anywhere within the article. 23rd century? 24th? SyntaxPC 14:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No such date is given in the series, however fans have been able to calculate that it takes place in the 2260s from dates given in Star Trek: TNG. 23skidoo 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I think it works out as 2267-69 if memory serves... - JVG 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A preponderance of {{film-screenshot}}

Not that it's terribly important, but I've noticed that a great deal of Star Trek screenshots on Wikipedia are tagged {{film-screenshot}} rather than {{tv-screenshot}}. How should we rectify this? Should we rectify this? Also, should this conversation be taking place elsewhere? I like things nice and clean, ha. - Dwiki 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

space shuttle

the article makes no mention that NASA's prototype space shuttle was named "enterprise" after the petitioning of many trekkies...would it be apprpriate to mention this in the article, i think it certainly warrants a mention somewhere... BFS

I agree: however, I'm working on a subarticle and summary (for the Star Trek article) that addresses this and the overarching cultural impact of Star Trek; feel free to review and comment. I'll post these in the coming days once they're completed. Thanks to all for your patience. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked the article, I don't understand why some have dismissed it as "poop" - Star Trek is perhaps the most culturally significan TV programme in history as you say. Perhaps you should mention the various "treknology" that has come out of the series too. Stuff that's been "invented" through the series. Needless injections and so on.... keep up the good work! BFS

Thanks for your praise ... I know! I think the 'poop' note was just immature vandalism.
I thought about "Treknology": if I do include such 'inventions', I will only mention major ones and those which are not erroneously ascribed to Star Trek. I also don't want to possibly rehash notions that are already dealt with/expanded on in the technobabble and Treknobabble articles. And near the end of the article, you will note that I've indicated <Conversely,...>, so it's not finished just yet ... but soon! Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW: done and done! TY for your patience! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed without discussion?!

Gator1 'removed as not "related to the production and influence of the franchise."'

from the "References" section, the following:-


Any discussion about this??!! ~~JohnI~~

They're not cited anywhere in the article (none of them are) so I can't tell if they're even being used. The entire reference section needs to be updated to resolve this issue. K1Bond007 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Three years of development?

Just curious about claims that there were three years of development. Any show can go through tremendous periods of time in creation and network pitching ... but the series itself, in true pre-production, was actually a matter of months. So, is it possible to clarify this statement or remove it altogether? Syfymichael 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to "The Making of Star Trek" by Steve Whitfield and Roddenberry, Roddenberry began planning Star Trek in 1960 - so actually it should read six years and I will make that change immediately. Also, remember the first pilot was produced in 1964 and the second pilot in 1965, so even if you only count actual physical production ... then Star Trek was still at least 2 years old when The Man Trap aired. 23skidoo 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

VOY ratings did NOT increase with the addition of "Seven of Nine"

"... which, in turn, increased ratings and allowed the series to continue for four more seasons."

I am a television industry research professional with access to ratings information. I deleted this line because it was incorrect factually.

Each successive season of Star Trek Voyager received lower ratings, on average, than each previous season. It is possible that the ratings loss might have been more severe had they not made the switch, but such speculation and does not belong in this entry.

Can you provide an online or other source to back this up? Otherwise it's in itself speculative and POV to delete the line. I'm restoring it for now. My suggestion is to provide a verifiable source that the addition of 7 of Nine did not increase ratings, acknowledge that there were reports that it did (Entertainment Weekly comes immediately to mind as they ran a story on it, if memory serves), and then provide a link and/or reference. 23skidoo 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Eitehr way, it needs to be properly cited so I inserted a {{citation needed}} after the sentence.Gator (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No arguments there. I thought about this when I put the text back but I didn't think about adding the tag. 23skidoo 18:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A citation?

23 Skidoo, you are the person who made the original, and incorrect, unsubstantiated claim that Voyager ratings increased with the addition of the Seven of Nine character. Why did you "restore" this unsubstantiated claim while asking me to cite mine?

[...]

Keep in mind that Entertainment Weekly is only a weekly magazine, and ratings fluctuations are quite normal from week to week for any program. When the industry is looking at the performance of a show, they average several episodes together - generally at least four while in mid-season. If you are judging performance year over year, then the appropriate measure is an entire season of episodes, compared with the previous one. In this case, if any entertainment magazine ran an article, they would most likely have done it to coincide with the premier of the character (which is when Paramount's PR department would be pushiing stories about the change). This means the article would hit early in the season - maybe even in the season premiere, after a cliffhanger, and in an episode featuring the more popular "Borg" villains. Chances are there was a brief ratings spike then for an episode or two - though not necessarily attributable to the new character, and it certainly was not sustained across the season.

I will look into the options, if any, of revealing the ratings here, however that runs into a slippery slope of publishing all ratings for every show on Wikipedia, and that's just not going to wash.

All I can give you is my best assurance that your twouncited claims are simply untrue:

1. The addition of Seven of Nine did not increase the ratings of that season over the previous season, nor did any subsequent season with Seven of Nine have higher ratings than any of the seasons that preceded the character's introduction.

2. Even if the ratings did indicate a sustained increase (which they did not), there is no evidence to suggest that Seven's appearance would have been the sole factor to cause ratings to rise (again, which they didn't).

Frankly, your uncited claim if ratings increasing season by season smacks of more of fanboy adoration than factual accuracy. I would kindly ask that you remove your claim until you can substantiate it. And to substantiate the claim, you will likely end up contacting me anyway.

Nephandus 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus

Still needs a cite either way, no matter who you are or work for.Gator (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The original claim was not cited, is POV, and is now disputed factually, and is also in conflict with the wiki article devoted specifically to Voyager, which indicates yearly ratings dropoff.

My proposed correction did NOT introduce a new uncited claim or disputed fact. Would not the proper edit be to remove the disputed fact until it is verified; NOT by restoring the disputed, unverified claim? What's worse, an alleged POV edit, made by someone who claims to be a media research professional (who, in fact, would be a primary source), or a verified, disputed, speculative POV entry?

I've also requested a citation that the addition of Seven was in response to a direct cancellation threat in Season 3, rather than a more general and ongoing attempt to increase ratings. Since it was unsuccessful in reversing the trend, and the show did indeed continue for another four seasons of successive dropoff, I find it unlikely that it was in any specific danger of cancellation in season 3.

Nephandus 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus

Both claims need to be cited which is why a citation needed tag was placed. This is simple. Find a cite (eitehr way) and put it in. If not, then the sentence, eventually, needs to go. There's nothing else to discuss.Gator (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Here's the cite that indicates the ratings for Voyager did not rise after the addition of Seven of Nine. Star Trek Ratings compilation 23skidoo, the ratings compilation is from Cyrus on Trekbbs, with whom I'm sure you are familiar. Nephandus 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Nephandus

Just to set the record straight, I posted the information based upon at least 3 different magazine articles that I read on the subject: Entertainment Weekly, Starlog, and one other magazine that the title escapes me. I added the information back in my early days as an editor when I wasn't aware that such information needed to be cited. I resent the implication that I was lying. I don't make this crap up. The fact there is proof to the contrary is fine, but nonetheless the rumor has existed for a number of years and should be mentioned. 23skidoo 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The implication is that you were mistaken - not that you were lying. As I discussed above, ratings fluctuate within seasons. If your magazine articles were written early in the fall season (when more people watch TV), coming off a cliffhanger with the Borg, it's possible those single eps were higher rated than the rest of the season, and that the magazines you mentioned could have tried to attribute the "success" to the new character. It's not like they would go back and do another story immediately afterwards though when the ratings took a dive, since they don't keep these things on a barometer, and they likely don't want to annoy the Paramount PR department.

I do take issue with the idea of a "rumour" that the ratings increased though. I've certainly never heard it and I would have. If you feel it is of vital importance to connect the introduction of Seven to a ratings grab, it's likely undisputed that her appearance was intended to pander to a male audience (albeit it was unsuccessful in raising the ratings), since her overt sexual appearance was not otherwise a factor of her character except in a single episode, nor was it apparently noticed by the other characters even though her "attire" was entirely uncharacteristic of any other character on the show (uniformed or not). Or, you can simply link to the character's own entry, which discusses that very issue. --Nephandus 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon's changing of picture

205.188.117.5 keeps replacing the picture but won't, after asking him to twice, come here to discuss it before making the change, so I will do it for him. I for one, prefer the current picture to the rear view picture, but its more important that the user come here and propose the change so we can reach a consensus before unilaterally changing it without discussion.

What are people's preferences. I would ask 205.188.117.5 not to change it again until we've reached a decision. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • actually I did come to the talk page with it, however someone decided to blank my topic, probably an edit conflict--152.163.100.199 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's great and all, but there was no discussion. There needs to be some now. Please no more reverting.Gator (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and why don't you register. Your changing IP address is hard to follow.Gator (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Here are the two pictures:

250px|The origional starship Enterprise

vs

The starship Enterprise as it appeared on Star Trek

Thoughts?Gator (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the second image originates not from TOS but from the DS9 tribbles episode. As such it can't really be said to represent an image from TOS. So if the question is to illustrate TOS, then go with the screenshot from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or, preferably, a side shot or other image that better displays the ship. 23skidoo 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good argument for the TOS page, but the regular Star Trek page....where's the problem? It's not meant ot illustrte the TOS, just what the original Enterprise looked like.Gator (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Considering that the title of the section reads: "Star Trek (1966–1969)" It might make sense to include an image that has something to do with Star Trek between 1966 and 1969--152.163.100.199 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's my rationale. The CGI shot is fine for illustrating Trek in general, or the NCC-1701, or even the Tribbles episode (if it's specified the image is from the DS9 version). But in a section discussing TOS specifically it should be an image from TOS. Maybe a compromise would be to not use an Enterprise exterior shot, but perhaps a shot of the bridge or some notable character from TOS like Balok or Trelane. 23skidoo 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're being too technical here, but I guess I would agree that a shot from the actual original series would be preferable, but the picture of the ship's ass is not a good substitute as far as I'm concerned so I, reluctantly, support the current picture until a better one is offered. The ass shot picture is not better IMHO.Gator (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (I like the term "ass shot" in this context). It is a rather well-known image (IIRC it's one of the still shots in the closing credits), but there are better ones out there. 23skidoo 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but the end of the Enterprise's warp nacelles changed from the pilots (where they look like vents) to the rest of the series (where the vents were replaced with spheres). Sometimes footage of the ship from the pilots was used in later episodes so occasionally the vents one would show up! Does anyone have images for both types? Marky1981 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason why I don't the "ass shot" picture. (Glad you weren't offended). I can;t beleive that there aren't any better pics out there....Gator (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like a good ass shot as much as the next starship-lover ... ;-) Unfortunately I don't have any TOS on DVD otherwise I would be happy to post a candidate to replace it. I suggest potential candidates be posted here first? 23skidoo 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was my entire point to the anon user, who hasn't bothered arguing for his picture, in the first place!

the third paragraph in the cultural impact - 1st sentence about classical mythology. could someone please justify the statement with some specifics? and the 2nd sentence to me is utter gibberish. also how do i do a tilde? - andrew roberts

The reference to classical mythology, as is much content in that sxn and parent article, is from the an article about Star Trek by the US Centennial of Flight Commission. This is also discussed in The making of Star Trek; see 'Sources' in that article for details.
As for other text, your reference is unclear. The parent article was reviewed by at least three Wikipedians before it was placed ... If you have an alternate way of communicating the same information, please clarify; otherwise, refrain from unconstructively commenting on 'gibberish' with your own. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Come to Memory Alpha

Hello, Star Trek freaks, I got to spread da word, so come to http://Memory-Alpha.com// to edit, THANK YOU. Whopper 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant advertising and totally irrelevant to this discussion. Unless, of course, you meant to refer to http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page, in which case your link is wrong.

DS9 NOT the most critically acclaimed.

If you check out www.imdb.com or any other site that tracks these things, you will discover that Star Trek:TNG exceeds the number of nominations and awards earned by Deep Space Nine -both for technical and non-technical, nominations and wins, individual episodes abd full series, and genre and non-genre awards. DS9 did not exceed TNG's critical acclaim - not even close. --Nephandus 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ferengi

Is Star Trek permitted in the muslim world? I just wrote this question in detail in the Ferengi section, but realized that section might be very seldom read, so I am re-stating the question here.

I recall that Ferengi had a strict dress code for women. Otherwise one might be tempted to take them off! What sexual depravity! . Other abrahamic religions promise the loving presence of God, but Islam promises worldly success like money and women, both in this life and the next. Muslims tend to regard Merchants as being the only decent job, which is why so many of them are merchants, partly because Mohammed himself is considered an ideal, and was first a merchant, but also, when necessary, a soldier. Traditionally they have had one single religious leader who took the role after Mohammed, I think it was the Caliph, but that part is not currently in use, although there are plenty of prominent people trying to take up that role. Ferengi also have, if I recall rightly, one religious leader. I could list a number of other possible similarities, so I went to this article and saw that Ferengi is an arab word for merchant. DanielDemaret 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Read a bit about Ferengi though. Their dress code for women is preferably nothing at all. They don't let females wear clothes within the home. Comparing Ferengi to Muslims would be the last possible comparison I'd make except for the common theme of : Women are treated as second-class citizens. - 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TalkContribs) 20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
My only question remains unanswered: Is StarTrek permitted in muslim countries? DanielDemaret 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism

Is it just me, are does Star Trek have atheist undertones? SaintDante 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Only once did they make any mention of Christianity. - 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Eep. I wasn't thinking of the other series or movies, just TOS :| - 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 21:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Athiesm suggests a denial of God's existance; absolutely not the case here. Nobody ever pushed the idea that God did not exist. As science progresses, we're challenged to make bibles fit into the scheme of a newly realized world(s) (be it Aristotle's, Copernicus', or those aliens credited with seeding all of the humanoid races on the various homeworlds). We're further challenged, and I guess it's implied that everyone makes their peace with their God. Bread and Circuses needed Jesus in the storyline so that the "Sun/Son worshipers" made sense.
That said, consider Star Trek V (briefly). You can see where getting God involved may not help the franchise. Or you could make a "Life Day" thing like they did in Star Wars' holiday special so that all of the myriad alien races that didn't benefit from the crusades could still share toys. I think Harvey Korman's looking for work. --Happylobster 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because the characters may not believe in Christianity, does not mean they don't have a belief in a God or Gods, or whatever at all. There was a lot of religion in Deep Space Nine. In fact it was probably the most prominent theme of the show. K1Bond007 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Data mentioned (in passing) a celebration of the Hindu festival of lights on the Enterprise in one episode. And I think a Christmas party was mentioned in one episode of the old show. Not to mention the kids opening their Christmas presents when Picard was in the Nexus in Generations... --Etacar11 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The novelization for Star Trek:The Motion Picture, supposedly written by Gene Roddenberry himself, claims that the Vulcan race's seventh sense (yes, seventh) is their ability to sense that God exists. Jpers36 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we cannot count that, due to the Star Trek canon policies. (Though I'll never understand why any work by a franchise's original creator would not be considered canon.) The Wookieepedian 21:36, 8 March 2006

(UTC)

Wow my question turned into a full out debate. Sweet. But my main thought of this came when the TNG crew visited a planet and they thought Picard was God. This didnt bother me much but Picard said that the race should have been rational enough to relize there isnt a God. Are that is how it seemed to me. SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But Thanks People usualy just ignore my questins SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual links.

There is no need to have a link to homosexual behaviour. There was no homosexual behaviour in the series and there was not any characters. There is no need to bring an agenda to something that did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.22.231 (talkcontribs) 21:59 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Did you miss the instances of women kissing women on DS9? I'd say its a relevant topic of discussion. --Etacar11 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "agenda" here. It is a legitimate topic. I personally like the article and the link, let's keep it. It will encourage vandalism by narrow minded lamers certain parts of the population who aren't willing to accept homosexuality but that's part of life. - 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You all have forced an agenda on the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.137.77 (talkcontribs) 01:28 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Like I said, there is no 'agenda' here. Watch one of the mirror universe episodes of DS9 and you will see two of the female characters kissing [9]. It's very much a part of Star Trek. It's part of life. It won't go away just because you want it to. Just so you know for any future occasion, comments expressing intolerance toward any particular group of the population are against policy. Let's really get to the truth of the matter, shall we, and that is: You're bringing your own agenda to this talk page. Please sign your comments with four tildes ("~~~~"). - 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 03:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if i could get a list on what the color of the shirts represent. like blue is worn by blah and rank blah and you get the idea. I would also like to compare different seasons and shows of this. I would be very grateful. SaintDante 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) TOS:

  • Yellow - Command
  • Blue - Medical & science
  • Red - Engineering/security/support

TNG and higher:

  • Red - Command
  • Blue - Medical & science
  • Yellow - Ops/Engineering/Support

I got this information from memory and verified with this link. — 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I also have one more request. I would be grateful to get a list of planet classes and their meanings. I am sorry if I am annoying any one with these requests. SaintDante 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The info you want is here. — 20px Flag of Ontario.svg Flag of Canada.svg nathanrdotcom (TCW) 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintDante (talkcontribs) 20:52 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Planetary Nations

In the first info box, it mentions Vulcans as a major planetary nation. It is not, it's part of the United Federation of Planets and should not be mentioned as a major planetary nation. --Feelgood 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)