Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Serious problem with Voyager episode articles

I happened across the Voyager series recently, and dug a bit further. I reviewed the following articles:

  1. Sacred Ground (Star Trek: Voyager)
  2. Rise (Star Trek: Voyager)
  3. Revulsion (Star Trek: Voyager)
  4. Retrospect (Star Trek: Voyager)
  5. Hope and Fear
  6. Dark Frontier (Star Trek: Voyager)
  7. Warhead (Star Trek: Voyager)
  8. One Small Step (Star Trek: Voyager)
  9. Live Fast and Prosper (Star Trek: Voyager)
  10. Body and Soul (Star Trek: Voyager)

What I found was not good. Only one of those ten (Retrospect (Star Trek: Voyager)) had any references at all, and that one had just a primary source ( All of the articles have external links only to memoryalpha and to I.e., these articles are completely unreferenced by anything from secondary sources. This makes all of these articles fail the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Further, the articles are almost entirely made up of plot. If you remove the infobox and external links section in all of them, what you are left with is almost entirely all plot. Only One Small Step (Star Trek: Voyager) has anything significant beyond plot (and all of it is unreferenced), and six have nothing but plot. The other three have a single sentence beyond plot. This makes the articles fail the WP:PLOT policy. If we are to abide by our policies and guidelines, all of these ten articles would be subject to deletion. Also, of the ten articles six contain screenshots. Of those six screenshots, all have very weak fair use rationales, and only one is even barely sufficient (and even it is lacking), File:ST-VOY 6 08.jpg. If these problems can not be addressed, you're facing mass deletion of up to 172 episode articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem with the Enterprise episodes, and listed a merge suggestion for the first season. No one was interested, so the merge tags went. Perhaps we might reach for a larger discussion of such episode, a large merge with notable episodes singled out for well cited individual articles. Alastairward (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur. I support the redirection of episodic articles (those lacking in RS and consisting of PLOT) to their apropos LOE or seasonal article. Furthermore, it's my interpretation of the non-free content policy and its criteria that we don't need to use any copyrighted media unless reliably sourced critical commentary is made on something from the episode which cannot otherwise be sufficiently described by text alone or a libre-licensed image. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, so how about this: Tag all Voyager episode articles lacking references to out-of-universe secondary sources with {{notability}}. Wait six months. At that time, any articles still lacking the references to be merged to List_of_Star_Trek:_Voyager_episodes. Agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Honestly the reason they haven'y gotten merged earlier is few people have the will, and there's a good chance many of them might in fact be fit for a standalone article, we just don't have ready access to sources about them :P Nevertheless other projects have followed the path we're talking about of stripping everything to lists (lets face it it's not really much of a merge) except for notable episodes—for example Stargate SG-1 has the majority of content merged save for episodes like "200". Really, if anyone has the time we should go through all Star Trek episode articles and tag them... the only ones I might exempt is TOS, as given the comparatively limited number of episodes it seems there is more critical and scholarly analysis. Anyhow, I think the articles with the greatest chance are event episodes and season premiere/finales, so we might as well focus our efforts on that (we got "These Are the Voyages... to FA, why not shoot for "All Good Things..." or "Endgame"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


I had considered the issue might be extended to Enterprise episodes. I was going to tag them just to let other readers know the issue has been raised. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually myself, and two other editors are working to find references. We need more time though. I have removed the merge tags. If we have not found sources at the very least by the end 2011 then it could be submitted for merge. There are three of use working, and over 200 Star Trek articles. Finding sources for all of them will take considerable time. Currently we are working on Dominion War --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm readding them, to ask to wait till the end of 2011 is a bit much. Six months was suggested by another editor. Really, they're just episode articles. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no deadline on wikipedia. Merging all Star Trek episode articles immediately is a bit rash. If they can be fixed (with a lot of work) then they should. Information in episode articles helps the reader understand the series better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Quadrant (talkcontribs)
If someone wants to undertake the daunting task of merging, let them. Any episode that can be spun out can easily be resurrected from the page history and expanded. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


? The following is an idea for the improvement of this Wikipedia WikiProject.

Hello all, I have noticed a lot of Star Trek articles are being merged or deleted due to lack of sources. We need to find sources for the articles. Merging all of the articles into lists would be easier, but it would also be lazy and significantly lower the quality of the information. We need to have a organized effort to fix these articles, add references, and assess and reassess articles. This WikiProject is becoming inactive. We need to organize a task force to get many of the articles in this project fixed rather than merging all of the articles into one list. Look at WikiProject Stargate, they have about the same number of articles and they are doing much better than us. They have a lot of quality articles because they coordinated their efforts. If we don't start fixing our Star Trek articles, more and more of them will be going through AFD. Assessment of articles is also slow. I spent May 7th - 8th grading 200+ articles and they have not been moved into archives because there are no newly graded articles. (see this log) Therefore I propose that we nominate and vote for a project coordinator who will coordinate efforts to fix, reference, assess, and reassess articles. Thank you for your time, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



I'm not really sure what a coordinator would improve. We're a small project, and I, for one, am more a "lone wolf" editor—not to mention that editing the Star Trek film articles is practically a full-time wikitask in itself. I'd love to help providing sources and such, but my library is rather small and I'm not really near a library where I can get access to the companions/materials we'd need to source the individual eps. Rant cut to the chase, it seems to me like a layer of beauracracy that's unneeded—we can discuss things on the talk page, and have project subpages to keep people in the loop on progress.
Now, on the mention of merging, deletions... what are we talking about? I'm much more open to getting rid of minor characters and factions, but considering the real-world tangibility of episodes I would go through more of an effort to try and save those. I'm all for increasing quality and centralizing coverage.
...Sorry if I'm not making sense here, or I'm answering tangental questions or too many or not enough or whatnot, I'm a bit frazzled (looking for jobs, housing, dealing with that pesky real world.) 19:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am particularly referring to Star Trek Animated Series episodes as well as important places in the star trek universe, such as the Unicomplex, which was the most recent Star Trek article to be merged due to lack of sources and poor writing. A single project coordinator may not be best, but we do have to make a coordinated effort. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a coordinator, you need more participants and activity. Try looking for users that have Trek-related userboxes on their pages,and asking for help in specific articles. Use clean-up tags on articles that require them.

As for "lists," we have to abide by The WP guide for lists and not just be a repository of facts.

Personally, I think Memory-Alpha and Memory-Beta do a superb job, and their content does not need to reproduced here. Just edit brief information here that describes the content to a non-Trekkie, and then point to M-A for more detailed information at the bottom of the article. BTW, if you're looking for references, try Memory-Alpha! ;) ... My two quatloos of input... -- David Spalding (  ) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I had suggested and had merged some of those TAS articles. I don't think we need to abide by our ability to have an article on practically every Star Trek subject (WP:PAPER and all that). There's only so much more that an individual article can show us about episodes that a summary page can. Especially when it's not a very notable episode.
I'm trying to pull in reviews that will support the TOS episodes, but if that isn't enough, so be it. Alastairward (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any particular use for a coordinator, given the small size of the overall project. I disagree with the underlying notion that merging content into lists degrades the quality of coverage: it's more than most of the nitpicky elements of Star Trek don't actually matter in the real world, and they're better relegated to list-y coverage (a general compromise between overly detailed in-universe coverage and outright deletion). --EEMIV (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New templates

I have created two new templates for the project:

  1. Template:WikiProject Star Trek Top
  2. Template:WPST Inactive

--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we template someone that they've been removed from the wikiproject? Wikiprojects are entirely self-opt-in and -out. --EEMIV (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It is in the WikiProject general guidelines. They recommend that WikiProjects should set a time in which active users are removed from active status. I selected two years. This is a rather long time. WikiProject Statgate's minimum activity is four months. This guideline is in place to keep WikiProject lists from being filled with inactive users who left wikipedia. If users came here looking for Star Trek help and they try asking a retired user who didn't bother to remove their name from the list/something came up and they couldn't edit anymore they won't find it from these users. Two years is a long time to not edit, but they may return. That is why I made the template to leave on their talk page. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

What is the stance of this Wikiproject in regards to using MA as a source? I totally get why we would want to use the sources cited within MA in our articles, but what about uncited info within any given article in MA? Given that they do not maintain the relatively stringent level of criteria that we do, I feel concerned that we are going to be allowing fancruft into our articles. We need sources, not speculation masked as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any wiki is not a reliable source as it cannot be easily or specifically attributed to any one person, and they do not have editorial standards. They may be permissible as external links in some scenarios. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, David. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I ask because someone is defending the creation of a page called Hikaru Kato, citing its non-cited reference in memory Alpha. They are using that page to redirect it to the Hikaru Sulu article. It appears that - outside of MA and a Japanese ST shopping website (which uses MA material almost word for word) - the term hasn't been used by any reliable or notable source. I don't think fancruft should be used as an article or a redirect. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If there aren't reliable sources, then it's probably not a valid redirect. Take it to WP:RFD if need be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have voted keep in the deletion discussion. It appears to be a valid redirect, one that may be used by many people. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


On June 17, 2010 EEMIV deleted this article and placed a redirect to the Star Trek: The Motion Picture. They stated that this was because of the treatment of the artilce, that it was too "in-universe" and it relied on plot.

I have reverted this decision because:

  1. the action was taken without any consensus or discussion
  2. attempts have not been made to improve the article first
  3. V'ger is the protagonist in the first film that launched that restarted the Star Trek franchise.

However, I am not an expert on the subject and therefore I am making you project editors aware as I hope you can help to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the general list of Star Trek characters would suffice just as well as a redirect to TMP. There's nothing in that article that deserves to be kept as a separate entity. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's highly unlikely there's enough real-world information (WP:WAF) about V'ger to warrant an article--it certainly doesn't meet muster as it stands. I support merging into a list of Star Trek characters (or similar), since the character does recur throughout the franchise. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. There might be enough content on its conception and aspects of filming, but not enough third-party/critical coverage to merit justification. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Technical aspects of its creation and/or filming might be best placed on the TMP article, information on the character (anything inuniverse) would find a place in the list of ST characters. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP Star Trek in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Star Trek for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and remember to sign your name. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

I'm not sure what you guys will get out of this article. I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure where it would be applicable without being trivia... Kind of like the bank robbers wielding bat'leths :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


This redirects to LCARS, where it isn't mentioned or explained. A search shows that it's used in a lot of Star Trek articles. Someone might like to sort it out? If it's an alternative name for LCARS then say so. Thanks. PamD (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to search right now to see if it deserves its own article (such as the tricorder does) but a slight expansion of the LCARS article would suffice for the time being. The two are not the same I suppose, LCARS is an OS of sorts for the Padd. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that phaser doesn't have its own page, it is under a page of star trek weapons. Does a page exist like this for equipment? I would think a padd would fall under that. I did a search for Hypo and spray hypo but came up with nada. Akuvar (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Galactic quadrant

The article Galactic quadrant is up for deletion discussion. You guys may want to save it. (Note: see sandbox version if it is not already merged) —CodeHydro 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bios of Star Trek actors

I've been working on a few of the bios of star trek related actors, does that fall within the scope of this project? Akuvar (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're heavy hitters or series regulars, they should be tagged; guest actors, not so much, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of edits to Takei's page and keeping vandals at bay. That is where I first paid attention to the wikiproject flag and got me interested. Akuvar (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the project page listed Denise Crosby's page needed work. Yeah, that's an understatement. I did some initial cleanup but it needs so much more. I'll take that page on as a project. Akuvar (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'u' (opera): Klingons take note

Hi. I started an article about the new Klingon opera, 'u', premiering at The Hague this week. K'plah! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears to meet notability guidelines, so it's a worthy stub... wonder how the play actually is though :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page color

I noticed that many other WikiProjects have different colored project pages and the project talk pages, I thought black with white letters (maybe yellow) would look good for our Star Trek Project. So I was WP:BOLD and changed the talk page background. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was equally bold and changed it back, it really did look terrible, sorry. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Star Trek articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to place a list of merged episode articles?

I was going to make good on some of the articles I'd tagged from Star Trek: Enterprise and merge them.

There's an overview of the different seasons on the main article page for the series and an overall episode list for the series. I'd put together a season page in my userspace as per those already exist for other series (like Stargate SG-1 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but it seems to replicate a lot from those first two Enterprise articles.

Would the season page I'd created in my userspace be worth turning into a full article, with slightly expanded plots for each episode? Or might episodes without any chance of being more than plot just be redirected back to the general list of episodes? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the list, but could you please wait a few more weeks before turning the articles into redirects? I am trying to improve them so they are acceptable quality. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant talk 23:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The articles have been tagged for a while now and a redirect can be undone once created. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've always found "List of X episodes" to be highly redundant with "X (Season Y)" articles; I think that creating the latter is more useful since it contains far more information beyond the embedded list. Frankly, I'd just axe the overall list of episodes and just go with seasons, because even featured lists for the episodes (e.g., List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) doesn't give any useful information beyond dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna create a template for this: "What David Fuchs said." --EEMIV (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I made it so. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Good start. I think a brief production section would also be useful (not to duplicate much of the show's creation, which should be in the main article, but more practical things for the overall season.) @EEMIV: I wholeheartedly approve of said template :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

More input for merger

Can we get some more input at the merge discussion please? [1] I see nothing gained by wiping out individual episode articles. Star Trek Enterprise episode one is currently what is being discussed for merge, which I believe means just putting a redirect in their place, and a much reduced bit in a list page. Dream Focus 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Dream Focus. It can hardly be considered a merge. It was more like a informal deletion discussion. If it were taken to AFD tey would have likely been deleted because of lack of sources. I objected to the merge, but i t still happened. --Alpha Quadrant talk 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing gained by including articles that include little more than a plot summary, myself. AQ says that if the articles had gone through AFD they likely would have been that preferable to a merge? Doniago (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is all just a little bit ridiculous. As it is, at the top of this talk page as I edit, is the start of a discussion that went on for some months, as to if and how the Enterprise articles should be treated. Since then, many months have passed and the Enterprise articles have been left untouched until I merged them. Editors who complain now have had ample time to actually do something and have declined. It's very easy to object, but not so easy to actually act upon those objections apparently.
Would those asking to keep the articles mind explaining the following;
  • If the articles would fail at an AFD, why do they deserve their own article?
  • If the articles are merged, and so can be unmerged later, why is this being deemed a deletion?
  • What can be done with the articles to make them more than a plot and credits?
It would help greatly to know this before proceeding. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a comparison of opinions. On the Star Trek Wikiproject page after another user had suggested merging Voyager episodes, I suggested doing so for Enterprise.
  1. Alpha Quadrant helpfully removed the merge tags and suggested I wait till the end of 2011 to suggest it again...
  2. David Fuchs suggested merging them all and spinning out those that could be expanded.
On the List of Episodes page for Enterprise I proposed the merge for a second time on the 18 June.
  1. Quadrant again suggested leaving it until the end of 2011.
  2. IAmTheCoinMan suggested deleting all but the better episode pages.
  3. An anonymous IP suggested it was a show of bad faith not to let Alpha Quadrant fix the articles.
  4. AkankshaG suggested that the plot summary was useful to see what happened in the episode.
  5. Doniago suggested merging all episodes tagged as plot and unimproved for three months.
  6. Another anon suggesting that plot summaries are useful.
  7. Theo Pardilla suggested... something. I'm not too sure actually, save that they seemed to think my actions were vandalism and that a merge was the same thing as a deletion.
  8. Dream Focus suggested I was merging merely because; "You don't get to eliminate an article, simply because you don't like how it is written".
So there appears to be an agreement amongst those that favour a merge that the standalone articles could well go, either merged or deleted. Those against a merge appear to have a variety of opinions, ranging from a far off date to fix the articles, a desire to see more plot summary and that the merge was vandalism or a case of I don't like it. That doesn't spell out a straight forward consensus against to me. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Another bit of input, EEMIV suggested that this was a good merge. Is there no further input from those who wish to unmerge other than to have an expanded plot for each episode? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice our Project logo is nominated for deletion

Hello all, someone has nominated our project logo File:Delta-shield.png has been nominated for deletion. I thought you would like to know. --Alpha Quadrant talk 18:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Would appreciate feedback here regarding merging Starfleet ranks and insignia with Starfleet uniforms. [Review of substantive content removal at the former also welcome; please note talk-page prompts there for earlier feedback.] --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, the uniforms article is pretty long and exhaustive. Merging the two would present a problem, would you integrate the insignia into the respective uniform slots, or would you just be tacking on to the bottom of the article? Integration would be a lot of work. I also think that encyclopedia users would be running a search on either one or the other - they'd see an episode and want to know about a person's rank and do a search for that. I'm on the fence - Help me Landru! Akuvar (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What they both need is a more thorough overhaul and perhaps a title change to e.g. Costumes in Star Trek to more strongly emphasize the out-of-universe perspective. They're both a mess, but I think cleanup for them as one piece would be less onerous than cleanup for them separately. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I believe that several of the images at Starfleet ranks and insignia are under the wrong license. Several of the images are inaccurate depictions made by users and are not copyrighted by Paramount. The first image is under correct license, but the fabric patches and the silver pin are not. They are not at all accurate to the real admiral insignia of the show. --Alpha Quadrant talk 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1)

I just noticed that this article is all by itself. There are no articles for Seasons 2-4 (I think there used to be, but they're gone now). And the primary purpose of the article, to provide a reference for what episodes aired in the season, is now taken by List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes. There's a little bit about critical reaction to Season 1 and Awards, but this material can be merged with the main series article. If Wikipedia isn't going to allow articles on each season, then to just have the one article makes things feel incomplete, and as it currently stands, it no longer serves a purpose (and any argument about Season 1 being more notable than the others is in my opinion an NPOV violation since there's plenty to suggest at least 3 and 4 were just as notable in various ways). On the talk page I've suggested the article be deleted. As an IP editor (I am a longtime Wiki editor but am editing as an IP due to issues I've been having with a few editors) I don't feel I can put in an AFD request in these circumstances, nor do I really want to because the WikiProject is better qualified to decide whether the article lives or dies. And if the lack of a Season 2-4 article is more an oversight than a policy decision, then maybe this might get the ball rolling on filling the gaps. So for now my suggestion lives only on the talk page. (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some pertinent info that could be salvaged from there for the parent site. While the table of episodes is the same as on the List of episodes page, near as I can tell. Fixblor (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The point of season articles is that the main article doesn't have to cover everything in detail, as per other TV projects such as Lost or Battlestar Galactica. Other similar pages not existing isn't a good reason to delete or merge, especially when the article itself isn't all that old. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Template:Star Trek

RfC: There's been an ongoing debate for the Template:Star Trek over where to place the movies, join the discussion at Template talk:Star Trek#Top row. Fixblor (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New FAC: Star Trek IV

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is currently a featured article candidate. If you have comments, please chime in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Episode templates on Deep Space 9

I was just doing a little copy editing around the DS9 episodes, and I found that the first and last episode of each season seems to have one of the following templates on them.

I can't really see any purpose to these templates, though if they are to be used, they should be on every episode, not just the first and last of each season. Personally, I'd say that we'd do a lot better adding a link to the list of episodes on the infobox. Any thoughts? Worm 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the infobox content and navigation is sufficient. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

star trek posters being deleted

File:Startrekgenpost.jpg and File:Star trek nemesis ver2.jpg have been nominated for deletion. (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)