Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

I'm back to talk about Trek inboxes again.[edit]

I wrote the article on Ishka in July 2016. At that time, it didn't even occur to me that there was still a Star Trek-specific character infobox around, and I naturally used {{infobox character}}. Today, Rxtreme (talk · contribs) replaced the latter with the former saying, "Replaced 'character' infobox with 'Star Trek character' infobox". Aye, that they did.

Fellow Wiki-Trekkies, why is there a separate infobox for Star Trek characters? We used to have a separate infobox for Trek episodes, too, but in a December 2009 discussion, we saw no need for such duplication. In March 2010, folks at WP:TFD agreed with that decision. Seriously you guys, can we, kay? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I only just noticed that in the December 2009 discussion, I said "Someday when I'm running low on strife, I'll ask about character templates next." I guess that day is today!

As I see it, the general infobox doesn't have Posting, Position or Rank. However, there's the ability to add those in under the lbl parameters. I don't think we miss anything out by simply merging the Star Trek one into the general one, and in fact we gain quite a few options in the infoboxes. Miyagawa (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
(a) Some/many of those parameters don't apply to what percentage of Trek characters who may warrant articles? (b) For those characters who do warrant articles, those parameters will frequently be filled with lists of entrants, trying to encompass everything we know about the character. For example, only 71% of the Michael Burnham infobox fits on my monitor here (currently set at or taller than 51.83% of desktop monitor resolutions). — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems like an instance of "Why do we have more than twenty subtemplates ( for fictional characters?" My guess is that it helps guide editors - they know what data is considered relevant for Star Trek characters in particulars.
(I'm very confused as to why Ishka has a Wikipedia article when, say, Minerva McGonagall, Charlie Bucket and Hawkeye Pierce don't, but I'm guessing that's a larger and more contentious issue. On the other hand, if there were only articles about notable Trek characters, I suspect it would obviate this issue.)--Rxtreme (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue all of those are notable, but I think many of their articles were so poor back in the day that they were merged and no one ever put effort into making good versions of them again, and why bother to have a bunch of shitty articles? I'm sure if I put in effort I could make a decent article for McGonagall, but I hv other stuff going on.★Trekker (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do we have more than twenty subtemplates […] for fictional characters? That's a great question. I don't know why, and that's why I'm advocating that we depreciate {{infobox Star Trek character}}. […] they know what data is considered relevant for Star Trek characters in particulars. Do they, though? Please take no offense at my repeating myself, but look at the infobox in the Michael Burnham article; it's so overloaded that only 71% of it fits on my monitor here (currently set at or taller than 51.83% of desktop monitor resolutions).

I'm very confused as to why Ishka has a Wikipedia article I wrote the article about the Ishka character because I chose to, and there is enough real-world information to sustain such. I can't speak to what I assume are other characters you mentioned; I've neither searched for nor edited those topics. […] if there were only articles about notable Trek characters, I suspect it would obviate this issue. Are you saying that there are few-to-no notable Trek characters, and ergo there wouldn't be a separate infobox in the first place, or are you saying that there are so fantastically-many notable Trek characters that nobody could overcome the inertia of the WikiProject and sheer amount of characters, e.g. {{Infobox Simpsons character}}? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that according to my understanding of the notability guidelines and as they are applied to most works of fiction (Star Trek, Simpsons and Lord of the Rings being glaring exceptions), Star Trek has roughly three notable characters: Kirk, Spock and Picard (there may be a fourth that I'm unaware of).--Rxtreme (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
No offence, but your understanding of notability standards must be really warped.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, none taken, naturally. Here's the guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction): "Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element". This is true of very few Star Trek characters. Also, given that your assumption above ("I think many of their articles were so poor back in the day that they were merged and no one ever put effort into making good versions of them again") was wrong (see discussion of McGonagall here:, you might want to look into why minor characters from other works of fiction don't have their own Wikipedia articles.--Rxtreme (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I have to say, that was 10 years ago and I very much disagree with the discussion.★Trekker (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There are dozens of notable Star Trek characters, from before and after 10 years ago. These are among the most known and honored characters in film and television history. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Related: I also switched the templates for Jadzia Dax. That lost us some information (creator, born, last episode, gender) but standardized other information ("Star Trek" in the header, "species" rather than "home planet", "partner" rather than "significant other(s)"). Especially where the "character" infobox doesn't have a field, the standardization is quite useful. (In fact, the lack of standardization is what brought me to both the Dax and Ishka articles. (I'm working on a fictional character database drawn from "character" infoboxes.)) --Rxtreme (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, these articles aren't for Star Trek fans specifically, they're for anybody. In your edit, you removed the character's last media appearance and the real-world individuals who created the character. Currently, there is no germane information in the {{infobox Star Trek character}} that could not be served by {{infobox character}}. […] where the "character" infobox doesn't have a field, the standardization is quite useful. You'll get no argument from me that standardization is useful, hence the proposed depreciation of a non-standard character infobox. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I noted that I removed those, whether "last appearance" belongs in an infobox is a separate issue. And there's no question that editors can still write long infoboxes under the guidelines. My argument is simply that if they use the template, they'll include "species" rather than "homeworld", "home planet", "race", "origin" or any of a dozen similar classifications. I've found this standardization (which is narrower than that provided by simply "character") to be useful--Rxtreme (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
{{infobox Star Trek character}} and {{infobox character}} both use |species=; neither suggests using the parameters you listed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
So they do! There's so much variation that I didn't check if the "character" infobox had a standard. (The infoboxes for Tolkein, Narnia and Final Fantasy use "Race" for similar purposes; Doctor Who and Space: 1999 use "Home Planet".) You can make a similar argument for "posting", "position" and "rank", but it's less compelling.--Rxtreme (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
For those parameters and others, there are the blank labels available in {{infobox character}} for those Star Trek characters where having that information at-a-glance is deemed essential by those editors. Would you still specifically object to the depreciation I recommended, considering the greater flexibility of the wider-used template? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
If it's a question of flexibility, it shouldn't be hard to make the Star Trek template flexible. (Or to add fields - I don't know why "last appearance" isn't a field for Trek characters.) I don't strongly object to the change, but I don't see a compelling argument for it. (And I see a rather weak argument against it.)--Rxtreme (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a question of necessity, upkeep, and standardization. The Trek-specific infobox isn't needed when the non-specific template can perform all the same functions. The Trek infobox has been maintained by 57 editors 0.029 times per day, while the character infobox has been maintained by 85 editors 0.056 times per day; the wider template has 49% more editors, and is updated 1.93 times as often. Lastly, there's nothing special about Trek characters that warrants them having a non-standard character infobox used by most other characters' articles. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna' toss my 2p in and say that we should just deprecate the Star Trek-specific one. When I look at Michael Burnham, I mostly see info that is treated like Burnham is a real character, not a fictional one—as in the infobox is tacitly pushing people to load it up with minutae that aren't important (knowing Burnham 'was'/'will be' born in the 2220s isn't important compared to the actress being the black lead of a Star Trek show, for instance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this comment. Michael Burnham doesn't use the Star Trek infobox (which maybe somebody should fix, pending the resolution of this proposal), but it sounds like you're saying the Star Trek infobox is prompting people to populate it up with minutiae? --Rxtreme (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

a negative magnetic corridor[edit]

Friends, Romulans, countrybeings, lend me your ears! It looks like I, User:Miyagawa, and User:David Fuchs are in favor of depreciating our franchise-specific character infobox, while I think User:Rxtreme is …opposed? Is the input of three editors against the objections of a fourth (zero of whom are among the 126 listed participants of this project) a consensus? Thoughts? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Wikilinks" like Barzan[edit]

See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Inline_links_to_Wikia_sites?. Is that something this WikiProject supports? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't something I've ever included in any of the articles I've worked on. I've only ever used the MemoryAlpha links at the bottom of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about editor Starspotter[edit]

Today I spent some time cleaning up the Star Trek (film series) article, mainly due to contributions from Starspotter (talk · contribs) earlier this year. I checked their contributions history and found over a thousand edits in the past year, and doing some spot-checking, a large number of them appear to be detrimental to the articles in question, with much incomprehensible material due to errors in grammar and English usage, as well as a habit of introducing unsourced personal commentary and redundant text. They seem to be very enthusiastic, and I don't want to rain on their parade, but I think maybe some kind of assistance or intervention may be in order? Unfortunately I haven't really any time available, so maybe some of you could look into it? You can also see some comments I left on their talk page. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I can contribute much to this beyond to say that I observed the same issue with them some time ago. Got as far as my giving them a final warning, after which I didn't see them editing in my Watchlist again. They've received warnings from other editors as well. Hopefully they'll take this to heart before administrator intervention is needed. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like there have been over 200 edits since your final warning, many of which are clearly deleterious to the articles, so it seems they haven't taken it to heart so far... If anyone has time to check through their edit history and clean it up, that would be helpful. Not sure what to do for the future, I suppose it depends how they respond. It might be good if a couple more people from here could engage with them, so they realize it's actually a real problem. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to deal with it myself... --IamNotU (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect my form of "dealing with" it would be more iron-fisted than approaches other editors might take, given I did give them a final warning previously, so I'm happy to defer this one to others. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek vs Transformers[edit]

This new page has been put up, but I'm not 100% sure it's a real topic (just sounds odd that the Trek franchise would team up with the Transformers franchise). If it is, please help the page along if you wish. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a real thing, but WP:TOOSOON as the first issue doesn’t come out until next month. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Eyeballs, please[edit]

Hi! If you have a moment, there's a bit of a content dispute over at Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (article history). Please chime in when you can. --EEMIV (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've escalated the issue above to the edit-war noticeboard. If any of you do have time, it would be nice to have a franchise-knoweldgeable but content-uninvolved editor offer input. Talk:USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)#Removal_of_trivia_in_article --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I did skim the discussion,, what a mess. It probably needs a point-by-point discussion for clarity, and editors need to take a step back and remember there's WP:NODEADLINE, especially for material like this. And yes, if the Talk discussion's claims are accurate, there does appear to be edit-warring going on. I can't help at this time, but wish you the best of luck. DonIago (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit stale now: the other party was one-day blocked for edit warring, and seems to have backed off. And since then, I think I've done a pretty good job reworking the whole piece. For entirely different purposes, feedback is still solicited over there! --EEMIV (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dammit. Very complicated, head-scratching idea to consider[edit]

Okay. I had an idea, but realized it would kinda snowball, perhaps, into some other ideas. Or at least jack up the disambig text we have for the various Star Trek starship Enterprise articles. Hence picking this forum to try to take them all on en masse.

However, the idea above has some fallout:

  • Idea 1 + Idea 2a: Idea 1 + Rename USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) into USS Enterprise (James T. Kirk) - because the captain and crew is what persists across all these iterations, save for the edge cases like "The Cage" and beginning of 2009 Star Trek. One might expect, then for USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) to be renamed USS Enterprise (Jean-Luc Picard) ... however, meh, I dunno. For one, there are two ships, I think sufficiently distinct and notable to warrant separate articles, with his name attached. I'd thought the 1701-E would have more third-party coverage/commentary, but meh I'm really not seeing much and am gingerly questioning notability. Have a slew though for the -D. Hmm. And then there's Archer.
  • Idea 1 + Idea 2b: Idea 1 + Rename USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) to USS Enterprise (Star Trek) - conveniently, this is the name of both TOS and the first film reboot featuring the Kirks. And it’s easier to imagine a rename of the 1701-D article to USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation). End the -E to ... USS E (ST:TNG films)? Longer and longer dab text ... and somewhere in there, need to decide whether a consistent dab pattern trumps clarity of topic ... probably not. Also, I'm not sure USS Enterprise (Star Trek) really is effective disambiguation.

And then coming full circle:

  • Idea 3: Just as there’s really no real-world distinction between the refit Enterprise and the 1701-A, there are huge real-world distinctions between the TOS design and the film reimagining; our decision to keep them in one article stems more from an in-universe perspective. Is it worth considering shifting the TOS content out, and keeping the TMP-TUC ship"s" separate? USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek films?)? Maybe roll in the 2009 reboot into the latter, with a hatnote that the 1701-E from the TNG films is at Enterprise (ST:TNG films), and the 1701-D ==> Enterprise (ST:TNG). NX-01 => Star Trek: Enterprise.

My head hurts, and I hope yours does, too. I propose Idea 1 + 2a or Idea 3 and am willing to protect the time to carry out the changes. I'm squishy on where to put the reboot Enterprise (does it warrant a separate article?). And of course for something like this really just want y'all's input. What say ye? --EEMIV (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see the argument for merging the -A into the original, as aside from a few lines of production information about reusing the refit model and some details on interiors for V and VI there's not much to add. More importantly, the cultural context of the OG, refit and -A (and even the reboot version) are pretty much wrapped together, I think it's a better idea to leave the names as is than identify them by captain, as you point out it doesn't neatly fit and raises issues with other articles and established precedent for how we disambiguate fictional items and real military craft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@David Fuchs:, what do you think about folding the -A into the original and shifting the dab text to just "(Star Trek)" and supplementing that with a hatnote pointing toward other flavors -- at least, For Now? --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@EEMIV: Me, I'd be OK with the merge, but I'd rather leave the title of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) just as it is. Changing the disambiguator to "(Star Trek)" would be really ambiguous, because Star Trek encompasses the whole franchise... so I think that makes "(Star Trek)" more of an ambiguator. :) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow, OK, let's open this can of worms! So, one of my favorite things to do when I am wrapped up in an article that I have a passion for is to remember that wikipedia is for the millions of non-fans out there that are looking for some kind of information on a topic, and how can we, as editors, even fanatic editors, present that in an encyclopedic fashion? So, if you were looking for information on the Enterprise from Trek, you're probably going to type a search for enterprise or perhaps uss enterprise. It is interesting that typing either takes you to the disambiguation page, which is actually great, because a lay-person can actually see all the Enterprises listed and make a selection. Doing a search for star trek enterprise takes you to the article on the TV series, but it lists a disambiguation at the top that offers Starship Enterprise. So, what does this mean and what is my point? I think that people that don't know anything about the Enterprise will do a search that will most likely end at Starship Enterprise and from there they can pick an Enterprise that they may be looking for. I think that the articles should be left as they are, but that the Starship Enterprise page should be improved upon, and should include, either in the intro or towards the top, EEMIV's idea of associating Enterprises with Captains, so that a lay-person looking for Picard's Enterprise would see a list and click on it. StarHOG (Talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: honestly, I think it's much more navigable the way it is. The only one of these changes that I'd support is to merge the page on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) into USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), leaving a redirect.
However, I would not object if somebody created redirects in accordance with your suggestion. There's an essay about that: WP:Redirects are cheap. As far as I can tell, it would cause no problems if USS Enterprise (Captain Kirk) existed as a redirect to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), and USS Enterprise (Captain Picard) existed as a redirect to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).
(By the way, you all might be interested in knowing how well the template {{USS}} works for writing these links. All I had to type was {{USS|Enterprise|Captain Kirk}} and {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701}}, and it formatted a wikilink with perfect italicization.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Looks like there is consensus for at least the 1701-A merge. I'll work on that, and we can defer on some of the rest. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

EEMIV, I've rolled back the 1701-A page, and please roll back any changes made from this discussion. What is aptly described as a complicated and head-scratching proposal was made September 3, just four days ago. There is no agreement made in four days, there is the start of a long discussion which many of us have not come here to wrap-our-heads-around yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Meh. The first one really is a no-brainer, but whatever; I'll undo some of the tweaks. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so where do we stand on edits today? I see the pages were merged, but are now separate again. Are we looking for a consensus? Have you had a change of heart? Your edits are extensive but I think the overall effect is good so far. I'm scared to jump in and tweak because you seem to still be going strong, and I'm not sure where we stand with the merge. StarHOG (Talk) 15:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be all for a merge if it was a true merge, a page named for both subjects where nothing even close to important is lost. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Randy, I don't know what to suggest about a "page named for both subjects" beyond what's above. Do you have a preference or suggestion, or are you just laying out your criteria? Hog, I think I'm mostly done for now with major edits -- please fire away at continuing to improve the article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I just spent a bunch of effort on reworking the Borg but will try to swing back around to it. StarHOG (Talk) 18:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Star Trek[edit]

I noticed some peculiarities on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek page, specifically the list of recent changes. David Ogden Stiers showed up as a recently, Star Trek related article to get edited, but I can find no tags on his page that would seem to link him to Trek, so how does the project page track him? And it isn't showing my recent edits to Beverly Crusher, Wesley Crusher, or William Riker but it lists my million-plus edits to Borg. Any clues or answers? StarHOG (Talk) 18:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how it works, but I can explain one discrepancy: I, like you, saw David Ogden Stiers on that list. Mr. Stiers guest-starred in one, single episode of The Next Generation; this does not place his biography under out purview, so I removed the project template. That's why you're not seeing it now. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, my question was not why he showed up, I know he was Timicin, but where did you find the template? I didn't see it anywhere in his article. StarHOG (Talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Prime Directive[edit]

I've been working on an overhaul of Prime Directive and have come to an impasse. There are two sections in the article giving me trouble: One, Use as Allegory seems to just be a heap of examples from episodes where the Prime Directive was mentioned or broken. Is a bunch of plot synopsis needed in this article? I gave some thought to blanking this section, and some thought of making it more like a list of episode titles and then a brief description of how it relates to the prime directive. Ideas?

Two, Criticism that points out discrepancies in Prime Directive story lines. It is a little harsh, maybe too in-universe in that, at some point, you have to say, hey, it was a TV show and the writers didn't always get it right or screwed around with things or didn't always think things through. I also gave thought to blanking this section. Who is the criticism from? fans that see problems? Outside critics who are over-analyzing a TV show? Thoughts? StarHOG (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...quick skim thoughts, both of those sections look like a lot of mostly plot summary. I would expect a Criticism section to site third-party commentary. And maybe the cited sources provide that, but the prose itself reads mostly as plot summary. The Allegory section also has an in-universe perspective, and really I have a hard time discerning where the allegoricalness comes into play there. Looking at the other sections, I'm mostly seeing an article that is about how the Prime Directive is depicted -- and even in-episode/in-film "criticisms" or observations about the Prime Directive are still part of its depiction. Two main suggestions for improvement: 1) the article should be compelling, but not exhaustive; right now, it looks like it's trying to chase every Prime Directive rabbit hole the franchise has gone down, and that's not tenable. I think a high-level overview -- a paragraph or two -- about the PD could cover most of the bases. Describe the directive itself, and maybe episodes (cited by sources) where the PD is a driving element of the plot. 2) Needs some real-world perspective. Whence the PD in the first place? Is this Roddenberry pushing back on American involvement in Viet Nam? Were the Insurrection producers channeling the Native American experience? How have the producers leveraged the real-world context to make the PD meaningful to its immediate viewers? I humbly offer The Force as an example of an article that takes an important plot element and gives it a balanced in- and out-of-universe treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not too sure Force was such a good comaprrison, I found it very wordy, too, especially that nonsense at the end with Reagan and what it really means to say, "May the Firce be with you" I mean, even Ackbar says, "May the Force be with us" before assaulting the Death Star, right? StarHOG (Talk) 18:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Inspired by Captain Cook?[edit]

Sorry if I do this wrong ... but someone need to fix the errors on the main page ... how can you talk about Star Trek an not mention that the show was based on the discovery of Australia by Arther Philip & captain cook, in their ships the Endeavour & the Enterprise ( 1788 )

“The creator of science-fiction series Star Trek was also famously inspired by Captain Cook and his ship, naming his fictional hero James T. Kirk and his spacecraft The Enterprise.

Kirk is the son of an Iowa farmer while Captain Cook was the son of a Yorkshire farmer.

The spoken line in Star Trek's opening credits "... to boldly go where no man has gone before" was inspired by a line in Cook's journal: "... farther than any other man has been before me ... as far as I think it possible for a man to go".”

Again sorry if I mess this post up. I just think it’s an important fact to be included in the main article.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be fine to include this IF (and only if) one or more reliable sources can be cited which mention it. Note that simply saying the connection is obvious (to you) is not enough. Did Gene Roddenberry ever say anything about this? Did any of the writers, or any of the actors, ever talk about this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)