Talk:Star Trek (film series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Star Trek (film franchise))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I remember going to the movie theater in 2008 and there was a brand new Star Trek film showing at the time. I remember the storyline was about Dana. It had Jean Luc Picard and it showed DEanna Troi getting married to the first mate William Riker. The movie was NOT STAR TREK NEMESIS. The movie showed Dana with human skin and he had upgraded sensors and he could feel human emotions. I remember a scene where he jumped out of the USS Enterprise in space and went into another ship. I can't remember the whole thing but they recovered his parts on a nearby planet and reassembled him. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the film and I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing up 3 entirely separate movies/episodes of TANG. (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Films Section[edit]

Could someone insert a colored line between the last TNG film and the first "reboot" film from a few years ago? Just as there is a colored line between VI and Generations. (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is the point of having two charts?[edit]

One of these charts was ported from the now defunct List of Star Trek Films article, but as is there is absurd redundancy. Plot synopses from first should be merged into second and then the first done away with.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


The plot synopses were moved to here from the main Star Trek page, because it was thought they would be more appropriate to this page. Similar synopses do appear on the "Harry Potter (film series)" page, and the James Bond (film series)" page. I don't really see why they are omitted here.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Adding Rotten Tomatoes scores for the films is foolish. Rotten Tomatoes wasn't around when the majority of the films were made, and thus is a useless barometer for true reception (especially as it is skewed towards newer critics and reviews.) Likewise, an average weight of the scores is intellectually dishonest. They aren't the same film with the same critics; you can't weigh the reception of one against the other in an objective, quantified fashion (even if these sites try to.) The article needs a proper, prose-based reception section, but in the meantime lets cut the garbage out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your edits with a the four "~" symbols.. Also, please maintain civility, as calling any editor's good-faith edits garbage is needlessly inflamatory and confrontational. I disagree with your opinion. It was discussed over on the main Star Trek page and decided that while it didn't belong on the main page, it was certainly relevant to the StarTrek (film series) section. There is no reason not to include this (and other) review information as it does reflect public perception of the films in general. Rapier1 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling the content garbage, and I believe I am perfectly justified in doing so. All save two (maybe three?) of those films were released before Rotten Tomatoes was a gleam in its creator's eye. Do I really need to go through and point out how heavily skewed and useless they are? They don't show public perception, and their critical reception is inaccurate and misleading. You can't explain how the films were received using them, so what is the point of their inclusion? (And as a side point, whoop-de-doo it was discussed on another, non-central talk page. Hardly a reason to do anything.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David, this is a place for rational discussion of content, not taunts and rants. As an administrator, I would hope that you would take into consideration the fact that your greater authority here also brings with it a greeater responsibility to be civil with other editors. Calling content "garbage" is inflammatory, however you may feel about it. Simply stating your reason logically for not supporting its inclusion is far more effective and less likely to produce ill will. Also, the "whoop-de-doo" comment is completely out of line. If a topic has been discussed elsewhere and editors have come to a good-faith consensus then that information is germaine to a future debate. There is no need in a discussion to use denegrating rhetoric, and I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments more civil in the future. We all have bad days, but please don't let it affect your editing or comments. Rapier1 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not having a bad day, I'm just not going to mince words. You have not brought up a single rebuttal to any point I have made; instead you complain as to my methods, which I find a complete waste of this space. Spare me your scolding, I'll not have any of it regardless. Have you any comments on content, which is what this was originally about? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David about excluding Rotten Tomatoes. The films precede Rotten Tomatoes, so the aggregation is not live, unlike for films this decade. It is better to use other sources that can report the contemporary reception more accurately. For as recent as 1999, I excluded the Rotten Tomatoes score for Fight Club because critical reaction to the film was more divided than the score reflects. Erik (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Rotten Tomatoes ratings are important for this page. While it may not show the reception at the time it was released, it does show the reception the films have had against the test of time. A films reception can change over time and while the initial reception is important, I believe that the current reception is more important. If I am permitted to give an example, The Shining's initial reception was very negative. While it is important to mention it's negativity at release, it is more important to note it as a film that is now hailed as one of the best in it's genre. I believe it is the same with Star Trek films. Eoghan1234 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that this edit-war has gone back and forth 5 times now by my count, shouldn't there be an official guidline in WP:FILM of some kind?--WickerGuy (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually meant WP:MOSFILM. Here is what is overtly stated (emphasis added by me)
These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)
I would gather from this that with the Star Trek series, Rotten Tomatoes should only be used in conjunction with quotes from other reviews.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Star Trek (film series)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star Trek (film series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "boxofficemojo":

Reference named "cast":

Reference named "meyer":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 05:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Curse Of The Were.....ummm...Star Trek Films???[edit]

(Imagine Spock, raising one eyebrow. That's me, here.) The painstaking references just make this even sillier. How important is this information? Really? (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Uh, I don't edit wikipedia at all, but could I suggest that someone improves the Star Trek curse redirect to have it go to where it discusses the curse? This is just for speediness and not that necessary, but just an idea. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

--- Elect that the curse section is removed from this article as whether or not this movie has or hasn't broken the curse is purely a personal bias. I think the fact of whether or not this movie broke the curse is totally subjective. I for one think that the movie wasn't as good as the others and others think so as well. I elect that this section of the Curse is removed as it is purely personal bias one way or the other. --Skippingrock (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The painstaking references are there in order to satisfy Wikipedia's rules of satisfying WP:NOTABLE. Without them, it would have to go. I'm not sure it merits a section, but if it's been mentioned in various newspapers and in movies in which Trekkers are characters, then a brief mention seems OK. The article should not take its own position on the last movie.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's important enough to merit its own section (it is, after all, just half-believed ex post facto hokum), but it's worth mentioning for its sheer persistence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely persistent in pop culture as a pop culture phenonemom. Actors in the Trek movies mention it in interviews!!--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why list the North American Gross instead of Worldwide Gross?[edit]

Shouldn't the worldwide gross be mentioned instead of just how well it did in North America? That's what they do in the main film articles. Dream Focus 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

At one point it was in the article, but I guess someone reverted me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Old series and reboot listed in the same chronology?[edit]

Shouldn't the new films, Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness, be in a separate chronology section from the original films? They are not part of the same continuity.
Sowlos 12:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office receipts relevance[edit]

Are box office receipts of a film series extanding from 1979 through 2013 even relevant? Shouldn't it be number of tickets sold, since prices have changed by a factor of ~5 in this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately ticket sales are not as readily available metrics, in terms of reliable sources. Grosses, however, are widely available and verifiable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) isn't a reboot[edit]

I don't think the 2009 film is strictly a reboot. The wikipedia page for a reboot in fiction states, "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". Casino Royale (2006) would, for example, be a reboot, as would Batman Begins, as they discard the previous stories told. However Trek 2009 does not - the story technically (if not chronogically in the film) begins in the Next Generation era with Spock from the 'original' timeline. Thus although the film creates an alternate timeline, it does not discard previous continuity. Nsign (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I would agree with you in principle that the 2009 movie is not a reboot in the "strictest" terms, your edits are premature at this time (I'm not sure what movie it would be a sequel to) and your timeline above is completely wrong (saying its during the ST:TNG timeline only because we have an adult Spock is clearly false). So a "reboot" would be correct because we are throwing out Star Trek history starting even before the time of ST:TOS (since the Original Series started when Spock, Kirk, McCoy, et al were much older and Pike had long since left command of the Enterprise). Reboot is probably the most descriptive word. Ckruschke (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Can you explain how its "clearly false"? The character is identified in the first 5 minutes of the film as "Ambassador Spock" - the title he was known by during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era. There are flashbacks within the film to the character in the future and he states he is from 129 years from now or something similar, putting him firmly in that timeline.
The film is not a reboot for the simple reason that it does not discard previous continuity - this has been openly confirmed by the creators of the film. See the Star Trek (film)article: "(Roberto) Orci said creating a reboot would have been disrespectful". The film explores Star Trek history in an alternate timeline but it does not assume that the "original" history never happened - if it did then it would be a reboot as per our own definition. Nowhere in that article is it described as a reboot and it shouldn't be here either. It is not strictly a sequel either but the film simply cannot be described solely as a reboot as per our own definition as it does not follow that criteria and is inaccurate. You haven't presented any logical reason or rebuttal for reverting my edits. Nsign (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think if you read my reply again, I've agree that the movie isn't a reboot in the strictest sense. However, I also say that claiming it is a sequel (which your extensive edits on the page did) to TNG/DS9 timeline solely based on the appearance of one character while the entire rest of the cast dates to a time prior to TOS is false. So I'm sure what your point is - I've clearly stated the points of my disagreement. If you want to discuss why it isn't a reboot and by doing so what to call the movie instead, we can do that (and the Orci quote is probably a good place to start despite whether he thinks its a reboot or not), but your other points are inaccurate and only cloud the discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
My edits did not claim it was a sequel. At one point I referred to it being a "sequel/reboot". Elsewhere I removed references calling the film a reboot. Your point about the timeline is (pardon me) illogical. The Spock character and the entire catalyst for the film's plot (the destruction of Romulus, Nero's journey into the past) originate from the TNG/DS9 etc timeline. That is not an opinion, its a fact. It doesn't matter if the rest of the cast predate TOS (and actually, they don't, because as I have already said, they are in an alternate timeline which will not predate TOS as we know it) - the film clearly and unambiguously uses narrative threads and characters from established Trek canon. Thus, it CANNOT be described solely as a reboot within the article according to the definition of the word here. It is simply wrong. Nsign (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Again you aren't reading what I said - I've now stated three times that I agree the movie can't be termed a reboot in the strictest sense - so I'm not sure why you keep arguing that point...
As I said previously, it probably needs to be discussed in the group as to what to call it if reboot is wrong. One option is to completely delete the word from the page. However, even if we all agreed to this in "Talk", my guess is that you'll have many editors coming in trying to reinsert that word into the page since I've routinely seen this word thrown out about this movie. Same goes if we follow your line and term it a "reboot/sequel" or some other variation to that theme - you'll have people coming in and reverting that assertion. Another option is to insert a discussion on the reboot topic itself within the page or a comment in-line with the first appearance of the word "reboot" as to how "the movie isn't a reboot in the strictest sense, but this is the best we could come up with so don't change the word", but IP editors and others routinely ignore in-line instructions about things they aren't supposed to add/delete from the text. If there's a happy medium somewhere, I'm missing it... Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Well since you agree that the film cannot be termed a reboot I fail to see why my edits were reverted. I favour deleting the word from the talk page (which I did). If editors want to try and reinsert it they'll need to justify it, but unless there is a re-definition of the term on Wikipedia, there is no argument to be had - the film does not meet the criteria established here for "reboots" and if it isn't described as such in the Star Trek 2009 article then it certainly shouldn't be here either. However I wouldn't object to adding a sentence here under the 2009 film to the effect of, "The film acts as both a continuation of the existing film series and as a quasi-reboot of the original series, with the plot device of time travel utilised to create an "alternate reality" seperate from the original timeline". Nsign (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Been following this discussion and wanted to weigh in. Star Trek (2009) is clearly a reboot. J.J. Abrams and Paramount said it is a reboot. It is almost universally regarded as a reboot by critics, fans, etc. That the filmmakers decided to do it in a way that doesn't ignore and disregard everything previously established in the Star Trek universe over the last 45 years, doesn't mean this film is not a reboot because it does meet all the criteria of a reboot. To try to claim that it is not a reboot is just not accurate and the goal here should always be accuracy. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Where are your sources for JJ Abrams and Paramount's stating that it is a reboot? The Star Trek 2009 article provides a sourced quote from one of the creators of the film confirming the film is not a reboot ("Roberto Orci said creating a reboot would have been disrespectful"').
"Almost universally regarded" is a purely subjective statement of opinion. Wikipedia defines a reboot as "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all established continuity in a series and start over from the beginning". The film demonstrably and according to the creators does not do that and therefore cannot be described as a reboot as per our own definition. If the goal is indeed accuracy then by our own rules we cannot describe a work as something it is not. We can describe it as a quasi-reboot, as it meets some of the criteria. These are simple facts supported by evidence. Any argument for describing it as a reboot rests purely on opinion. Nsign (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
No you're arguement that it is not a reboot is your opinion alone. It has been called a reboot here for 4 years. And it is even used an example of a reboot by Wikipedia. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have any sources or any argument to speak of. So until you can bring anything constructive to this discussion please exempt yourself from it. Nsign (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Who are you to tell me to exempt myself from this discussion? I don't have to cite multiple sources to prove the earth is round. That is accepted at fact. Just because one person who says different is quoted doesn't prove anything. The 2009 Star Trek film is regarded at a reboot. It has been called a reboot on Wikipedia for years. It is even used an example of what a reboot is. Just because the filmmakers used a plot device to respect everything that had come before, doesn't mean it is it is not a reboot. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agree with you Thornhill. Although I said that it wasn't a reboot in the strictest sense, I didn't say the term didn't fit (again - you don't seem to be reading the whole comment). I've also seen a preponderance of publications call it a reboot. This is of course anecdotal evidence on my part, but "no one" is calling it a sequel. Just because Orci says it isn't a reboot is somewhat meaningless - he could have been pandering to the Star Trek crowd to try and assure them he wasn't throwing out 45 yrs of history (as many ST fansites and publications were worried about prior to the movie coming out and which Thornhill alludes to). Who knows... However, I would hardly hold Orci up as the end all, beat all word. Saying so is a bit disingenuous. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

With respect Ckuschke, Orci's statements are not meaningless. Your speculation about whether he is pandering to the crowd is simple speculation and original research. Who are you to disregard the creators statement of intent with regards to their own movie? Wikipedia works with FACTS, not assumptions, speculation or original research. We have sourced, verifiable statements from several sources from the creators of this work stating clearly that the film is not a reboot, and you are simply choosing to ignore them to suit your own preference. That is a simple denial of reality. Roberto Orci and Robert Kurtzman wrote the film and by definition they know a lot more about it than you do. Below are further statements from the creators of the film with relevant quotes in bold:
You will note that here Roberto Orci is quoted as saying, ""We couldn't imagine not having this movie somehow fall within some degree of continuity. We don't accept the word reboot. Reboot does not actually describe the fact that this movie would not be possible without the 10 movies that came prior to it. The very events of the movie themselves are caused by Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock and his story, which picks up essentially after the last movie, Star Trek 10 [Nemesis]. ... So our movie is both a prequel and a sequel. It's a sequel if you're a fan, and a prequel if you're not." You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?
Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization. So your point is since Nimoy’s Spock would at least start well after the TOS period, then it isn’t exactly a prequel.
Roberto Orci: Exactly, Nimoy’s Spock is very much in line with canon. You guys have said this will respect canon and ‘fill a gap’ but you are also trying to make a new movie for a new audience. Why aren’t you doing what they did with Batman Begins and just start over and avoid opening yourself up to the critiques on breaking with canon?
Roberto Orci: The reason we aren’t starting over is because the people involved, both fans and behind the scenes, have worked so hard to specify what is canon - then to simply ignore it would be unnecessary. There is so much about The Original Series that is worth continuing. It is not like Batman where you can ignore everything. That being said there are some things that have never been specified fully in canon that we take liberties with.
Anthony: So what happens with the destruction of the Kelvin is the creation of an alternative timeline, but 'what happens to the prime timeline' after Nero leaves it? Does it continue or does it wink out of existence once he goes back and creates this new timeline.
Bob: It continues. According to the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever, quantum mechanics, it continues.
Anthony: So everyone in the prime timeline, like Picard and Riker, are still off doing there thing, it is just that Nero is gone.
Bob: Yes.
  • I have been told here that regarding this film as not being a reboot is a matter of my own opinion. Now, I have provided sourced, verifiable statements from the creators of this work that the film is not a reboot and was never intended to be a reboot. That is demonstrably not a matter of my own opinion. I have also clearly demonstrated why the film does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reboot. Again, not a matter of opinion but a simple and demonstrable fact. I have also not called for the film to be described as a sequel - I have said we should refer to it as a "quasi-reboot" as that is the most accurate description. Other terms we might use could be "both a prequel and sequel" or "both reboot and sequel". I simply state that the film cannot be regarded as solely a reboot as it simply isn't by our own criteria. The argument that "we've called it a reboot here for years" (except, conspicuously, on the Star Trek page, where I suspect it would be thrown out very quickly were anyone to try and insert it) is not an argument supported by any Wikipedia policy. If its been wrong for years, its still wrong.
Ckruschke, you have so far been willing to engage sensibly with this so I'd now ask you to please provide a rebuttal of the above supported by Wikipedia policy, sources and facts, that does not rely on WP:OR, WP: Synthesis or simply stating, Lebowski-style, "yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion", which has so far been SonOfThornhill's method. If you can then I will happily engage and discuss it with you to reach some kind of agreement or consensus. If you cannot then I will reinstate the edits and if they are arbitrarily reverted then I will seek mediation or resolution via other channels, and bear in mind that my argument is supported by policy, sources, facts and logic, and thus far, yours is not. Nsign (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ckruschke, I think we are in complete agreement here. Does the film check the boxes on every criteria for a reboot. No it doesn't. But just because it only meets 8 or 9 out of 10 of those criteria doesn't mean it is not a reboot.SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

←Guys I think you're making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be. We have a lot of general sources that describe it as a reboot; we have the creators who specifically say it is not; and we have the term itself, which by technical definition does not apply to the film (although I would say that "reboot" is thrown about now not just to describe continuity but a "that didn't work we're starting over" approach.) If we have the sources, put them in. "It has been called a "reboot" of the franchise, though Orci considers it…" and be done with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with David on this. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me, although I still prefer simply calling it a "quasi-reboot" and briefly explaining why. My concern is that as soon as I remove the repeated references to "the reboot" the edits will be reverted with no coherent explanation, as before.Nsign (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There will always be IP editors (and others) who come in and change correct info. However, we'll have this clear dialogue in Talk to refer anyone to as to the thought process behind calling it a "quasi-reboot" or whatever is agreed to. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Well unless there's a source that refers to that, we can't really delve into that language ourselves. If necessary, we can shunt the relevant info to a special footnote--"while described as a reboot by XX, XX, XX, and XX,[1] YY said that ZZ,[2]and the movies are still canonical.[3]" Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So David, then what is your suggested change - if any? Once we have an agreed plan, we can institute it.Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I will put something together shortly. Nsign (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, I think you are confusing substance with semantics. One (such as yourself) can argue that a "reboot" in strict terms is simply a "do-over" with no in-story recognition of it. However, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek's use of a plot element to discard the established continuity does not mean it is not a reboot. Perhaps they wanted to make the new series appeal to older fans by using Star Trek's tradition of eccentric physics as a plot element and a cameo appearance by Leonard Nimoy seeing the new series off or perhaps they felt the new story needed a "bridge" to connect the new series to Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek. Whatever the case, the fact is the new series discards the old continuity and start over from the beginning (Kirk's time).
If you would argue that it doesn't discard "all established continuity", this is true. There is an established pre-Kirk continuity, but:
  1. They wanted to reboot the Starfleet/Federation continuity, not erase it.
  2. TOS is the starting point for all Star Trek continuity later written. Discarding it is essentially discarding the Star Trek continuity.
  3. ENT already established that the Federation of the 29th century & onward polices time travel, making the Nero continuity difficult to accept unless they actually did discarded the whole previous continuity. However, this heads into OR territory and we need keep with reliably sourced facts, which leads me to my third track of thought...
It is nice that co-writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman give their thoughts on the new serial's reboot status, but they are not exactly impartial sources. Everything they say in interviews is tied to PR and the marketing of their product. They are reliable sources for the happenings within the plot they write, not on the wording the rest of the world uses.
Sowlos 12:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As already pointed out with reference to sources, the new series demonstrably does not "discard the old continuity and start over from the beginning" and therefore the film cannot be described solely as a reboot as we define it. It can be described as "both a sequel and reboot", which is what I have changed it to in the article, or even as a "sequel and a prequel", which is what the creators have called it. Your interpretations above are all original research. Nsign (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As already pointed out with reference to sources, the new series demonstrably does not "discard the old continuity...
And as I said, I challenge the validity of using promotional interviews as sources in an objective categorization of the subjects' own work. Such open interviews lack the editorial oversight of reliable sources and the subjects clearly have a conflict of interest.(WP:QS) Such open interviews also draw up (WP:ABOUTSELF) issues.
Your interpretations above are all Original research.
At the risk of sounding redundant, my point in that tangent was the need for reliable sources.
It can be described as "both a sequel and reboot", ...or even as a "sequel and a prequel"
Ironically, this is why several characters in Star Trek were portrayed as disliking time travel/"temporal mechanics". It seems I forgot to mention it before, but I'd like to see third party sources explicitly calling the new Star Trek serial and/or something like it not a reboot. Unfortunately, this type of plot element isn't the most common and may not neatly fit into any single definition. Simply calling a new/revived series starting over may be the best we can do.
That said, I think such a lengthy discussion on this topic is silly. It is an over-analysis of semantics. "Reboot" indicates that the story is starting over and the new depictions of Kirk & the Enterprise cannot be retroactively integrated into the previous time-line. To stray away from that term due to a specific semantic interpenetration can be more misleading for readers than using it.
Sowlos 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why statements from the creators of a work should be considered invalid. Who are we to dispute the creators own stated intent? What "conflict of interest" is there? They have devised and written the narrative and are therefore by definition much more knowledgeably qualified to comment on that narrative than "reliable sources", whoever they would be. However, even if one were to consider it invalid, you can just watch the film. There is no ambiguity. It is directly related to existing canon and demonstrably does not "discard all previous continuity", therefore it cannot be referred to solely as a reboot as per our own definition.. Batman Begins - reboot. Casino Royale - reboot. Amazing Spider Man - reboot. Star Trek - not reboot. Nsign (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Proposed changes:

Lead : "A reboot to the original television series, simply titled Star Trek, was released in May 2009", changed to "After a 7 year hiatus a new film was released in 2009, simply titled Star Trek, serving as both a sequel and reboot for the franchise".

"A sequel to 2009's reboot of the franchise, Star Trek Into Darkness, is scheduled for release in theaters in May 2013" changed to "A sequel to 2009's Star Trek..."

"Reboot" section renamed "Star Trek (2009)" and the word "reboot" removed from that section

The word "reboot" removed wherever solely used to describe the 2009 film.

I have also added some information to the Star Trek: Nemesis section that provides some context for the 7 year hiatus: "This film was a critical and commercial failure (released in late 2002 in direct competition with the James Bond film Die Another Day and The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers) and was the final Star Trek film to feature the Next Generation cast and to be produced by Rick Berman.

"Star Trek" section

Second paragraph: "This film acts as both a sequel and a reboot to the existing franchise by taking place in an "alternate reality" using the plot device of time travel to depict an altered timeline, featuring younger versions of the original series' cast".

I have already made the edits. If they are unsatisfactory then we can discuss why here. Nsign (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

INFO BOX[edit]

I started an info box for this page. It is based on the styling of similar franchise movies (Harry Potter, Fast and Furious). It took a good while to get all the information compiled and formatted. It needs a few more fields added and a picture I can get to in a couple of days. I am locked out from adding pictures for a day or two NEW USER. Tell me what you think just? --Mccordscvs (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast Members[edit]

Should it be noted, somehow, that the Worf in undiscovered country is not actually Worf, but his grandfather? It seem misleading to say it is Worf. Is there a way to gloss with an asterisk or something?

Agreed. I changed it to add an asterisk next to Michael Dorn with an explanation below the table. They are definitely distinct characters, though they share the same name.221bbaker (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, under 'The Next Generation cast' heading, it calls Undiscovered Country a transition film, but I don't think it is, and the claim is unsourced. There are NO characters from the Next Generation who appear in Undiscovered Country, only the actor Michael Dorn playing the grandfather of one of the TNG crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatendrum (talkcontribs) 19:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Made changes. Ckruschke (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thanks! Skatendrum (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Written by" section in infobox[edit]

Why is Gene Roddenberry listed in the infobox as having written all twelve Star Trek movies when he died right before the 6th one was released? (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say the infobox itself is so diffuse as to be useless, disregarding the above issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: insufficient support Ground Zero | t 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek (film franchise)Star Trek films – see below - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a separate franchise from the rest of Star Trek, it is a series of films within the Star Trek franchise, so should be moved to Star Trek films. If anyone objects, please discuss why here so that a decision can be reached. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Star Trek (film series) would be the appropriate disambiguator as per WP:NCF#Film series (see Transformers (film series) for example). You should probably just go ahead and do it since the current title is inconsistent with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought Star Trek films would be better because it is really all apart of the same series as the tv shows, if you know what I mean. Like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has the page List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films rather than Marvel Cinematic Universe (film series). I'm going to go ahead with Star Trek films per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BOLD, and if anyone really thinks it should be moved again, they can discuss it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't work for some reason, so I'm just gonna request it be moved. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed name per WP:NCF#Film series. Star Trek films would be inconsistent with how film series are named on Wikipedia. The correct title for a "list" article would be List of Star Trek films whereas the correct disambiguation for an article is Star Trek (film series). I agree the article should be renamed, but it should follow the standardised format. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to link to with the wikilink NCF#Film series but I don't think it is right. Now, Star Trek films is more appropriate than your suggestions, because this page isn't just a list, there is a lot more information than that, so we can't really call it List of Star Trek films, but I would also rather not define it as a film series, because it is not a separate franchise to the TV shows. The example you provided above doesn't really apply here, as the Transformers films aren't part of a wider multimedia franchise like this. Also, the films have been spun-off from the TV shows, rather than the other way around. I know that the WP:MOS suggests consistency in our layout and structure, but it also tells us to do what works best for the individual articles, and I think in this unique case we have to do something a bit different. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The (film series) disambiguator is entirely applicable here. It is irrelevant whether it is part of a franchise or not, because this article just describes a series of films. The relevant guideline for this can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). The alternative is to use the List of XXXX format which would be consistent with lists such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of James Bond films, both of which include a substantial amount of prose. Many list articles contain substantial prose; lists are defined mostly by their structure. There is nothing unusual about this article that requires an atypical title format. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Betty. "Star Trek films" is inconsistant with how other film series are handled by Wikipedia. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. List of Star Trek films is probably the most appropriate choice then. Any objections? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with that. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is about the film series / film frachise, this is not about Star Trek films. There are other "Star Trek" films that are not part of the series/franchise. If you want a list article about Star Trek films, create a new article. A general Star Trek film list would include documentary films about Star Trek such as Trekkies (film), which this current article excludes. -- (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that is a non fiction film about Star Trek, it is not a Star Trek film. This article is about the films that have been spun-off the Star Trek tv series. It is not an individual film series or franchise. There are currently 8 films spun-off from the original series, and 4 films spun-off from the next generation. They are not one consistent film series, so List of Star Trek films is more appropriate, because we are listing the films set in the Star Trek universe, not films where Star Trek is the subject matter. An easy comparison is List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, because, like Star Trek, there are multiple films in the MCU that aren't part of a single film series, but take place in the same universe, and essentially serve the same function. If a feature length documentary about the MCU films was released, it would not be added to that page, because it is not a film set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is the same situation here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is considered a film franchise in the industry. Your argument about the "source material" of used in the films is immaterial to it being a franchise or not. The continuity between films is also immaterial to it being a franchise or not. The proposed name does not bar material such as "Trekkies" or the section that was just deleted, the fan film "Axanar". The article should bar such material, as a separate list article can be created to list any old Trek-related film. Being spun-off from the TV shows does not bar the TV shows from being TV series, even though it has related film, and vice versa, here, where the films are related to TV shows. -- (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as that entire comment was personal opinion, I will add my own - I disagree. List of Star Trek films is the most appropriate title because this is a list of films connected to the Star Trek TV series and therefore set in the Star Trek universe. This is not a film series (like X-Men (film series)) or a franchise (like Terminator (franchise)) it is a list of films (like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Star Trek: Axanar[edit]

Star Trek: Axanar should be removed from the article. It isn't part of the "reboot" series (where it is currently sitting), and it is a fan film, therefore not part of the film franchise. -- (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I support its removal. It looks like promotion (sourced to Kickstarter and a fansite). Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that move. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with removal.AbramTerger (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree to. A fan made film doesn't belong here SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No reboot[edit]

The current film series is not a reboot, since it takes the original continuity as a starting point and shares characters with it. (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It is functionally a reboot, as a film industry usage. It also doesn't take place in the same physical universe as the original films, since the physics of Star Trek are radically different in the JJ Abrams universe (so this would be some Alternate Spock falling in time into an Alternate Federation); (how is this evident? ST:Enterprise and TOS shows ships at warp firing on one another, and detecting and maneuvering at warp, this isn't possible in JJ's universe, so it is literally set in an alternate universe (like those thousands of Worfs in one TNG episode) ) -- (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Labeling "reboot series" the Kelvin Timeline[edit]

I recently had an edit reverted renaming "The reboot series" to "The Kelvin Universe".

"Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond occur in a separate timeline from the rest of the series. In June 2016, to keep fans from confusing the old continuity from the new, Paramount officially has named the Star Trek films produced by J.J. Abrams as part of "Kelvin Timeline".[1] Former names for this universe have included the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", "NuTrek", the alternate timeline and the reboot series.[2]"

According the the reverter, "Discussed years ago, consensus was to identify this films as the Reboot series"

This would normally be true, however, if you look at the sources, this is Paramount's official name for this timeline. If this was the consensus "years ago", and this official name only was announced a month ago, we should reopen the debate. Oldag07 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ ""The Kelvin Timeline"- Official Name for the New Star Trek Universe". MSN. 27 June 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2016. 
  2. ^ Staff, TrekCore (26 June 2016). "STAR TREK Alternate Universe Finally Gets Official Name | TrekCore Blog". Retrieved 24 July 2016. 
New information, therefore a new consensus required. Since the official line is that it is the Kelvin timeline, that should be the terminology used. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The sources don't really say that it is Paramount's official name. It is the name being used by the Star Trek Online game and the updated Encyclopedia. But both are very different than Paramount giving it an 'official' name. Is there an official press release from Paramount about this? When this was originally discussed and debated several years ago, it was agreed that WP:COMMONNAME applied. Other than hardcore Trek fans, most users would be confused by any term other than 'Reboot' because that is how most regard the new films. Wikipedia is not for hardcore fans of any franchise, it is for everyone so the label should be something that everyone would understand and not be confused by. References to the name 'Kelvin Timeline' are fine within individual sections but those section in the articles and templates should continue to follow WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources, fair enough.

More sources that confirm the name change.
Sources that use the term "Kelvin Timeline" as a term.
  • Explore The Kelvin Timeline[3]
  • Will Star Trek 4 Wipe Out The Kelvin Timeline Completely?[4]
  • J.J. Abrams Says ‘Star Trek 4’ Has the Best Story of the Kelvin Timeline [5]

On top of these sources, the original term "Reboot universe" is not technically correct as shown in the previous discussion. Memory alpha calls it "Alternate Universe". Several sources use varations of JJ Abrams' name. Reboot universe is a wikipedia made up name. Oldag07 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not just more sources, it is the quality of the sources and reading what they say. None of the say that Paramount Pictures, which produces the films, has officially adopted this name. Even the article titled "J.J. Abrams Says ‘Star Trek 4’ Has the Best Story of the Kelvin Timeline", doesn't produce a quote with Abrams using the term 'Kelvin Timeline'. It is a name adopted by CBS for the game Star Trek Online. As stated in one article by Holly Amos of CBS Consumer Products, who said they "needed an in-universe term since we needed some way to refer to it in the encyclopedia." Typically Wikipedia does not use in-universe descriptions. So it is a named not adopted by Paramount Picture but by a separate company for a video game. Also, just because some blogs and websites are now using the name doesn't mean the majority use that term. Many, many more still refer to the new films as a reboot. That is their WP:COMMONNAME, not something made up by Wikipedia. So there is also a WP:WEIGHT argument, in that minority views should not be given undue weight. That said, the name 'Kelvin Timeline' should be referenced in the various articles in context of both the game and encyclopedia, we do want to provide readers with as much information as possible. However, it cannot be said that Paramount has officially adopted the name because none of the sources bear that out. Nor should the template or sections in the articles be retitled in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "The Kelvin Timeline" does seem to be the official name since it is now being used on the official Star Trek website. As for whether we use it here, I believe we should. SonOfThornhill is quite correct in that by and large sources refer to the series as a "reboot", but WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here. It is an article titling policy, and does not govern internal article content. The reason we choose common names over official names for article titles is simply so that pages can be more easily found on Wikipedia. If the debate was about whether we should call an article "Star Trek reboot series" or "Star Trek Kelvin Timeline" then policy dictates we select the former. That is not the case here though; whether we refer to the series by its informal common name or the new official name within the article is of no help to readers searching for the article. Since "reboot" is something of a misnomer anyway (the series is more of a sideways step than a fresh start) I think using the official name for internal article reference would be the better and correct option. That said, the informal titles (reboot series/alternate reality series) should still be mentioned in the appropriate section to prevent any potential confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry Betty but you're very first statement is just not true. The article you linked to refers to Star Trek online, the computer game. There is nothing else on that site that uses that name. It's just one article about a computer game. It cannot be considered an "official" name on that very thin basis. And while WP:COMMONNAME does refer to article titles, it was determined several years ago when this issue was first discussed that WP:COMMONNAME did apply here to the template and section header in articles. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just hardcore fans of a franchise, using anything other than the term reboot would be confusing to non or casual fans. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, I strongly disagree with the argument that a "majority of sources" do not use the terminology "The Kelvin Timeline" and thus the policy of WP:WEIGHT applies. Doing a google search just for news articles with the query, "kelvin timeline" "star trek", brings up 1,590 results as of the time this entry was written.[6] This isn't 6-7 blogs using the term. Many of these are mainstream media sources. These mainstream sources stating this is "the official name" of the new timeline, not using it in passing. As for this not being offficially announced by CBS and Paramount, these sources are quoting Holly Amos of CBS Consumer Products. No effort by CBS or Paramount to retract the statement, and it has had almost a month to do so. Moreover, considering the fact that the term hasn't been official for all but a month and the alternate timeline series has befen around since 2009 there is reason to believe that the terminology will have a greater use in the future.
    The more important question, that I believe SonOfThornhill is alluding to, is how do we mention the fact that the reboot series is now called the Kelvin timeline without confusing the average reader. One should assume that after several more months of use this will become less of an issue. As of now, the note that I made in the Star Trek article is a step in the right direction. As Betty Logan has mention, continuing the use of the the informal titles should also be used. Is there any other suggestions?Oldag07 (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    And if you were to put in Star Trek Reboot in a google search you get 24,300,000 results. So it is 24,300,000 vs. 1,590 results. So if WP:WEIGHT applies, it clearly leans on the side of the term 'Reboot'. And none of the sources ever mention Paramount, just CBS and in relation to Star Trek Online, the computer game. Paramount doesn't need to issue a statement to retract it. That is just setting a ridiculous standard. The term "Kelvin Timeline" should be mentioned in the article but in the proper context and without the false claims that it has been officially announced by Paramount because it hasn't. Nor should the Template or section headings be changed. If "Kelvin Timeline" becomes the mainstream term in the future, then there is a case to make the change. Until then, there is not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    There are 64,000 terms using the term "reboot" using the same standard. News articles only [7]. These search results also include the term reboot in relationship to the term "Ghostbusters" (That film being released at the exact same time the Star Trek film was released) and the new Star Trek Discovery series. Speaking of the Star Trek Discovery, why don't we have this same argument over changing the title of that series. Clearly, there are more sources calling it the "untitled 2017 TV series" then Star Trek Discovery. Both had official announcments stating that they are the new term for their respective topics. But of course there are more search terms calling it the original way. They are new vernacular. One should note that CBS and Paramount both co-own the property so a statement by CBS is just as valid as one made by Paramount. Oldag07 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    "Star Trek Discovery" is the name of the series. And 'Kelvin Timeline' only had an "official" announcement in regard to a video game, not in regard to the film series. So that is a false equivalency. Also, when I clicked on your link it came up with 586,000 results. Either way 586,000 or 64,000 vs. 1,560 would still leanWP:WEIGHT on the side of the term 'Reboot'.SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The term "Kelvin Timeline" seems to have come into common parlance during the past month or so. However I would not support titling the section "Kelvin Timeline" as it's an in-geekdom name rather than a simple description. I'd title the section something like "Rebooted timeline" (or whatever it is now), and mention in the first sentence that this is known within the fandom as the "Kelvin Timeline". -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    I have no objection to that. "Kelvin Timeline" is an in-universe description that is probably only familiar to hardcore fans. All other parts of the franchise are identified by their title "DS9", "Next Generation", etc. or an external description, "The Original Series" and "The Animated Series". Never before has an in-universe description been used. However, there is no reason to not include the term "Kelvin Timeline" in the text of articles. The second sentence of the "Star Trek Beyond" is currently, "It is the thirteenth film in the Star Trek film franchise and the third installment in the reboot series, following Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013).". I would have no objection to a change to something like this, "It is the thirteenth film in the Star Trek film franchise and the third installment in the reboot series, and takes place in the Kelvin Timeline begun in Star Trek (2009)". SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Just want to add two links. In this article the actual text from Paramount's press release regarding the next movie is included. Please note that in Paramount's official press release the term "Kelvin Timeline" is never used. But note this sentence from the 6th paragraph, "“STAR TREK,” the first film in the rebooted franchise based on “Star Trek,” created by Gene Roddenberry, earned more than $380 million worldwide in 2009." So Paramount in their official press release issued just last week doesn't not refer to the new films as the "Kelvin Timeline" but as a reboot. Any claim that Paramount has officially adopted that term or name are false. This next link is from Variety which is the paper of record for the film industry It also does not use the term "Kelvin Timeline" but instead say reboot. As I said above, while "Kelvin Timeline" should be included in the text of articles in context and where appropriate, it needs to be done on a factual basis. And section headers in the articles and template should remain unchanged. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Comment Your official "press statements" aren't "proof". Just because the term "Kelvin Timeline" is not mentioned in a press document does not mean it isn't official. Nor does that prove that the term "reboot" is the official terminology. I do trust the mainstream press. We seem to be arguing in circles. I will agree with the people with the opposing viewpoint, that at this very moment, the term "Kelvin timeline" seems obsure and might seem confusing to the average reader. I personally believe this will change overtime with the continued usage of the official term an as such this will no longer be a term only applying to "geeks". In the spirit of compromise, I will accept changing the titles now, but waiting six months to see of the usage of the term "Kelvin Timeline" increases. Oldag07 (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's not my official press statements, it's a press release issued by Paramount Pictures itself just a week ago. If over time "Kelvin Timeline" becomes more mainstream, the issue will need to be revisited then. For now, the template and Section headers should remain unchanged. However, there is no reason why the term "Kelvin Timeline" shouldn't be worked into articles as suggested above. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - "reboot series" should be renamed to something else long time ago as it is not actual reboot. First of all films are connected to previous timeline and are not set as actual TOS reboot, films also doesn't act as a reboot for Star Trek universe as Star Trek: Discovery will be set in prime timeline. It's more like back to beginning, definitely not a reboot. Vilnisr T | C 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • In my personal opinion, this is the strongest reason to change it. Still, lets keep the Wikipedia:Consensus for now. Oldag07 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Counter proposal - It seems that there is some consensus for using "Kelvin Timeline" as the name for the in-universe reality somewhere in the body, but not as a heading. There also seems to be a lot of support for the idea that we should only be using the term "reboot" because that is what everyone says, not because it is actually true. Therefore, I propose that we use a neutral description for the heading, and then explain in the body that everyone uses the term "reboot" plus the Kelvin info. For example:
2009 revival
Following the cancellation of Enterprise, work began on a new film...etc. This revival of the franchise is often considered to be, and referred to as, a "reboot", but is actually a continuation of the franchise that establishes an alternate reality from the previous films. This was done to free the new films from the restrictions of continuity without completely discarding it, which was deemed to be "disrespectful". This new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was officially named the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for use in reference guides and encyclopaedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new reality in 2009's Star Trek. Abrams named the starship after his grandfather Henry Kelvin, whom he also pays tribute to in Into Darkness with the Kelvin Memorial Archive.
This way we are not choosing to name the films anything ourselves, merely describing them, while making it clear that they are usually referred to as reboots, have been called several names informally, and now have this official designation that was created for reference guides and encyclopaedias. Most of this paragraph can be sourced from this source, by the way. Do you guys already involved in this discussion have any thoughts on this proposal? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Paramount in it's latest press release refers to the current series as a reboot. That is how most people think of the films, how they are referred to overwhelmingly in the press & media and why WP:COMMONNAME applies. It is also why the name 'Kelvin Timeline' cannot be called an official, that is just not factually incorrect. The 2009 film WAS a reboot. It may have been done in a slightly different way than other reboots but it is still a reboot. Calling it anything else would just be confusing to anyone who is not a hardcore Trekkie. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If Paramount calls it a reboot, then we can say that Paramount calls it a reboot. That doesn't mean that we have to call it a reboot. If most people think of the films as a reboot, then we can say that most people think of the films as a reboot. That doesn't mean that we have to call it a reboot. WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, so the only reason that would be an issue is if casual readers were struggling to find the article about Star Trek films while it is located at "Star Trek (film series)". I seriously doubt that that is the case.
People thinking of this as a reboot does not explain why "Kelvin Timeline" cannot be an official term, nor why it is "just not factually incorrect" (which I don't think means what you think it means). On the other hand, "Kelvin Timeline" being chosen as the formal designation for use in official reference guides and encyclopaedias does make the term official as far as those books are concerned, and if you read what I wrote, I made sure to note that the name was only created as a label for the in-universe reality, and only for these nonfiction books. Nothing else is even implied. Again, we should just be stating the facts, nothing more.
"The 2009 film WAS a reboot" is just not true. The definition of a reboot is that it discards "all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning". Since the 2009 film does not do that, it cannot be a reboot. That is a fact. And since when did we play along with common misconceptions to avoid confusing casual readers? Many people, including a scary percentage of the American government, do not believe in global warming. Should Wikipedia articles on global warming also pretend that it isn't real so as not to confuse those readers? No, of course not! The Wikipedia articles on global warming state the facts (global warming is real, unfortunately), and we can only hope that readers will learn the truth and be able to move forward without making the mistake again. If I was proposing that we blanket-replace all mentions of the Star Trek reboot with another term then confusion would be understandable. But I am not. Instead, I am proposing that we explain to people why this isn't a reboot, and hopefully over time it will become more common for people to not refer to this as a reboot. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No what you're proposing it to change the articles based on your opinion, not on any facts. You don't need to explain facts to people. This issue came up several years ago. At that time it was determined that: 1) WP:COMMONNAME did apply here in regard to section headers and the template. 2) Reboot was the most appropriate term to use because that is what the studio that produced the film called it, that's what the actors that were in the film called it, that's what the media and press called it and that's how most of the public think of it. Wikipedia is for everyone not just hardcore Star Trek fans. And not for a small minority of those fans who've decided that the recent films are not a reboot, just because the filmmakers did it in a slightly different way. It's an opinion that they are not a reboot. The facts are that the studio which makes these films call them a reboot. Read Paramount's own press release from just a week ago: Nor can the term "Kelvin Timeline" in anyway be called 'official' just because it is being used in one book and a computer game. Those are the facts. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to clear a few things up. A fact is something "that is known or proved to be true". An opinion is "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact". A reboot is an installment of a series that discards "all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning". Keep these definitions in mind.
The 2009 film does not fit the definition of a reboot, since it does not discard all continuity in the series, or recreate its characters, timeline, and backstory completely from scratch. So calling the film a reboot is your opinion, and it doesn't match the facts. And since the writers of the film have not only explained this for us, but also why they chose to go this route rather than making a straight reboot, there is no good reason why this encyclopaedia shouldn't be explaining their intentions.
The 2009 film is considered to be a reboot by many people, including Paramount. That is a fact, and I am in no way denying it. We should be including this fact, and giving it the due weight it deserves. But that does not mean that the film is a reboot. Because it isn't, we've already established that. Again, the fact that we should be stating is that everyone calls it a reboot. Another example would be if everybody (Paramount, the cast, media, etc.) erroneously referred to Beyond as a prequel to Into Darkness. Would we start labeling Beyond a prequel? No! We would call it a sequel, because that is a fact, and we would explain that everybody called it a prequel anyway, which is also a fact. That way, we are only reporting the facts.
"You don't need to explain facts to people." This statement is an opinion. There are many facts that people need to have explained to them, for them to understand. People are not born all-knowing. We have to learn things as we go through life. And sometimes things are a bit complicated, and we may need people to explain them to us for us to properly understand them. That is a fact.
The "Kelvin Timeline" is the formal name for the in-universe reality that has been chosen for use in the official encyclopaedia. That is a fact. If you think I am trying to imply something more by including this, then I can't help that, but saying that the "Kelvin Timeline" is not the name they gave the timeline for that encyclopaedia is just not the truth. Because they did create this name for that encyclopaedia. That is a fact. We have reliable sources to prove it as well.
In summary, the facts that we know and should state are: the 2009 film does not fit the definition of a reboot; the creators of the film intentionally did not reboot the series; many people refer to it as a reboot anyway; and the new reality that the film and its sequels are set in has been named the "Kelvin Timeline" in an official encyclopaedia. Those are the facts; they fit the definitions that I laid out above. You can deny it all you want, but if A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then A must be equal to C, and if somebody claims otherwise, then it is up to us to explain to them why they are wrong, to try and educate them, not pretend that they are correct and just play along.
This has nothing to do with hardcore Trekkies versus casual readers. In fact, I am not a hardcore Trekkie, I am merely a fan of the new films who has seen a few episodes of the original series. But what I am, is a Wikipedia editor, and it is important to me that we make these articles right and well. That means replacing opinions (the film is a reboot) with facts (the film is considered to be a reboot by many), and explaining things for casual readers so they can learn about the topic, rather than continue believing common misconceptions. Its too bad that you don't share those ambitions. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Every single argument you make was made several years ago. The 2009 film IS undeniably a Reboot. Paramount which owns Star Trek and produces the films calls them a reboot. Just because the filmmakers did the reboot in a slightly different way that honors what came before doesn't me it's not a reboot. That is a fact. Anything else is just an opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, I have gone back and had a good read through all the past discussions and edits relevant to this issue, and I'd like to go through what I learned before we continue with this discussion, if that's alright. You are correct that the arguments I am making were made several years ago. What you have failed to mention, is that they were made as part of discussions that resulted in the opposite consensus to what you claim is the consensus on this topic. Here we go.

This issue was first discussed in February 2009, at Talk:Star Trek (film), and the general feeling was that the film isn't really a reboot. Regardless, the discussion did not lead to a change in that article. However, a second discussion starting in September of that year did lead to action. The consensus of that discussion was that the film is not technically a reboot, but everyone is mistakenly referring to it as such; the article was changed to state that it was not a reboot, with a quote from the film's writer given as proof of this (so it wasn't just editor's opinions), but that it was commonly referred to as such by the media. The article stayed that way for almost two years, until a random IP came along in June 2013 and changed the article to call the film a reboot. Since this goes against the established consensus, it should have been reverted immediately. However, ironically enough, the IP had misspelled reboot "rebbot", and so immediately reverted its own addition. At that point, you (who had already been outspoken about your belief that the film was a reboot) reverted the IP's removal, as if they had removed some longstanding part of the article, and fixed the typo so that the article was now calling the film a reboot. How you got away with this when consensus was clearly against doing that is beyond me, but you did.

Now, back then this article wasn't that great, and a (I believe reasonably experienced) editor took it upon themselves to improve upon it, and added a good deal of information. It was they who introduced the reboot heading, despite the existing consensus and the fact that the 2009 film article clearly stated that it was not a reboot. That lead to a discussion in February 2013, after the film article had been saying it was not a reboot for about a year and a half, which can be seen above. To make it brief, a proposal to refer to the film as both a sequel and a reboot (and therefore not use reboot in the heading) was made, which you agreed was a "reasonable compromise". The article remained this way until December of that year, when another random IP reintroduced the reboot heading, and the against-consensus error was allowed to persist here as well. That kind of makes sense though, as by that point you had apparently changed your mind, and decided that explaining the complexity of the situation was no longer a "reasonable compromise". Instead, you started a new discussion over at Talk:Star Trek that completely ignored both the discussion here and the one over at the film's talk. There, you laid out your two main points—that though the film may not technically be a reboot, it still serves the same purpose; and that everybody else calls it a reboot, so if we don't then we will confuse or lose readers (per WP:COMMONNAME, which doesn't apply here but isn't a bad guideline to try and follow anyway)—and there was some support shown for these two points from editors involved (that is, registered editors. You completely ignored the objections and opinions of non-registered editors in a pretty weird and rude way, so I don't think it is even true to say that a fair consensus was reached. But you said it anyway), so you took it upon yourself to go around and add reboot to a whole lot of Star Trek articles.

So, back to this discussion, it is clear that you have completely ignored two separate discussions that ended in clear consensus to describe the complexity the film's status rather than try and label it in one word, and orchestrated your own one in which you decided to ignore everyone who disagreed with you so that you could get the outcome that you wanted. Well, don't expect that to happen this time, because I will not let you ignore me just because you disagree with me. When you work in a community like this, you have to cooperate with others, or it just doesn't work. So if you are not willing to work in, then I suggest you walk away before things get ugly. But I don't think that is necessary. There is no reason why you can't work with me to come up with a compromise that suits everybody, so I hope that you do chose to do so.

To start discussing our compromise, let's quickly recap what we are trying to find a compromise between: there is consensus to explain the film's complex status rather than simply label it a reboot; there is consensus to state that the term reboot is pretty commonly used to refer to the film; and there is consensus that the film serves the role of a reboot, even if it doesn't technically fit the definition of one. I think those are the main points. This is a potential compromise:

This film uses the plot device of time travel to act as a sequel to the previous films, with Leonard Nimoy reprising his role of Spock from them; give the appearance of a prequel to the original series, with new cast members playing younger versions of the original series' cast; and serve as a functional reboot of the franchise, freeing the film and any sequels from the previously established continuity. Orci explained that this route was chosen over a traditional reboot to avoid being "disrespectful" to the franchise, of which Orci is an avid fan. Despite this distinction, the film is often considered to be a strict reboot of the franchise by the general media. The new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was designated the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for official Sta Trek reference guides and encyclopaedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new timeline in 2009's Star Trek. Abrams named the starship after his grandfather Henry Kelvin, whom he also pays tribute to in Into Darkness with the Kelvin Memorial Archive.

You will see that this acknowledges that the film is essentially a reboot, and that it is generally considered to be a reboot by the non-fanboys. That's a big tick for you. You will also see that it explains why it technically is not a reboot, and why the writers made that distinction. That's a big tick for us. Everyone wins. Compromise!

Now, we obviously can't label the section reboot if we then give this explanation for why it is simultaneously not a reboot and more than a reboot as well, so we'll have to come up with something else. I suggested revival earlier, because that is how the new version of Doctor Who is referred to. I make that comparison, because the revival of Doctor Who also serves as a "functional reboot", setting up a new cast, storyline, updated designs, etc., without technically discarding the preexisting continuity, just like the new film did. Another option could be continuation. Either way, by being descriptive in the heading, and making it read 2009 ___, we will be making sure that anybody looking for the new films, whether they consider them to be reboots or not, will be able to find the right section.

I know this is a long comment, but I really think that I need to completely explain my logic and list the facts, given your penchant for dismissing anything you don't agree with as just an opinion. And in case you were considering calling any of my proposal into question, it is all reliably sourced information, so don't even try it. I hope you seriously consider working together to find a compromise on this, and, again, sorry for the length. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I like this compromise. I think your original wording is a little more concise. (edited with American English and a some trimmingOldag07 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This revival of the franchise is often considered to be, and referred to as, a "reboot", but is actually a continuation of the franchise that establishes an alternate reality from the previous films. This was done to free the new films from the restrictions of continuity without completely discarding it, which was deemed to be "disrespectful". This new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was officially named the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for use in reference guides and encyclopedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new reality in 2009's Star Trek.
I'm fine with this wording for the most part, it is factual and fairly describes the situation. I would change the word "actually" to "also" in the first sentence and omit the word "officially" since that is not accurate but other that everything else is OK. Thanks Oldag07! As before, I don't think the template or section headings should be changed at this time, Paramount still refers to this series as a reboot, and it would just be confusing to non-hardcore fans. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that we are making everything more confusing. The heading of a section cannot completely contradict the contents of said section, which is what would happen if we titled it "Reboot", and then explained why it isn't a reboot. How about we name the section 2009 "reboot"? That way, casual readers can see the word reboot that they know from Paramount and the general media and so can get to the right place, but it also acknowledges what we are saying about it being a "functional reboot" more than a reboot in the traditional sense. Again, I think this is a good compromise. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As one of the many voices that 'discussed' this with Thornhill years ago, I still side myself with Oldag07; reboot is inaccurate and 'Kelvin Timeline' is now official - I just didn't have that particular name available at the time. (Personal attack removed) 2A02:C7F:621:700:7509:3902:F416:ED86 (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment There's no need to mention the phrase "Kelvin timeline", as it is plot cruft. The new films effectively act as a reboot, even if that is not pedantically accurate. Referring to the new films as a "reboot" is appropriate and concise without delving into plot minutiae. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)