Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Standardized cast list

Is it possible to standardize the cast lists on the articles on the Original Series, the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise? I have a structure to propose:

Actor Character Rank Position Species
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~

The articles already have this structure, but one part or another is invariably lost in one or another. It would be great to see this standardized in a comprehensive way. You may also change the title bar color according to the uniform color of each series, and the list may be ordered according to the ranks. I am pretty sure it wouldn't take much hassle to get this done. Live long and prosper. Aditya Kabir 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a table and all that added in-universe information, or for that matter colouring. All that information is contained on the character pages. Matthew 12:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated episode notability

An editor has requested deletion review on this template after consensus was reached to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate (as the 'Treks have episode articles -- which are at risk with this template) at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Matthew 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When you're poking at episode pages...

...please take a quick look at the caption under the infobox picture. Most of the captions unnecessarily repeat the episode title. It's already the article title and at the top of the infobox; we don't need to repeat it yet again with "...in [episode X]" at the end of the caption. --EEMeltonIV 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Noonien Soong

An article related to this project, Noonien Soong, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination). Thank you. Orderinchaos 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Next/last episode box for TNG episodes

I noticed that TOS episodes have a next/last episode box at the bottom of the article, is it easy to make up such a thing for TNG episodes? Alastairward 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in the regular infobox on the top right. The TOS thing presents production order. At some point, I'd like to integrate that into the infobox and ditch the bottom-of-the-article navigation. --EEMeltonIV 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So it is, although the TOS box is useful for when you're browsing episodes. You've reached the bottom of the article, you want to move on, there's the box. Alastairward 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Check some stubs please

I thought I should make myself useful and looked at two stubs, the Organian Peace Treaty and J-class starship. Are they above stub-standard? Alastairward 22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The description seems only to apply emphatically to the Enterprise episode; the bulleted bits are supposition that the J-class ships described in TOS are the same J-types from the Enterprise era. If startrek.com or some other source can't substantiate that connection, I'd suggest redirecting J-class starship to the Horizon episode. And if they are the same class of ship . . . eh, I dunno. --EEMeltonIV 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Character name formatting

Ok, I seem to have made a fudge of the formatting for characters under "J" and someone else has done similar to the formatting for characters under "H". Anyone able to point out my mistake? Alastairward 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)

Star Trek rank articles have been nominated for deletion (to be merged) in bulk. -- Cat chi? 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical music in Star Trek

FYI. --Fang Aili talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)

Another FYI SkierRMH 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask members of this project, if they're interested, to try to find more sources to establish notability for Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager). I happen to believe that all Star Trek episodes are notable, not because they "inherit" notability from the parent series, but because so much has been written about every episode in reliable sources. However, since my Star Trek fandom isn't quite as obsessive as my Doctor Who fandom, I don't have access to all those sources. I hope that someone in this project does. The unofficial episode guide Delta Quadrant by David A. McIntee would be a good starting point; if McIntee analyzes or reviews the episode (as I assume he does), a summary of his opinion could be added to the article in a "Reception" section. Any discussion of the making of the episode in one of the Star Trek magazines would be useful too. Most useful of all would be any reviews of this episode in mainstream media outlets. (I've searched through the archives of the Washington Post, L. A. Times and Chicago Tribune, to no avail, but I haven't given up hope that some TV reviewer happened to discuss Voyager that week.)
I hope that project members realize that this is a tipping point: if this episode article is deleted, hundreds of other Star Trek episode articles will be too. I think that notability can be established for any Star Trek episode, but I can't do it by myself. I hope members of this project will work together to show that Star Trek episodes are worthy of having their own Wikipedia pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This is not an attempt to canvass for !votes in the RfA — it's an attempt to canvass for improvements to the article under discussion, so that the RfA can become moot. If the article can improve enough, the deletionists won't have a leg to stand on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants to use quotes from Delta Quadrant, just let me know and I'll supply them- I've still got the manuscript on disc, so it'd be easy to pull quotes. Lonemagpie 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't believe a seperate article for each individual show is needed, not just with Trek, but any television show. Notable episodes are another story, but I can't see a lot of real-world information available to support every episode in a show that ran for 7 years. Ejfetters 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Fellow Trekkies

I recently uploaded the image Martha_Hackett.jpg which I took from [1], however, I got a warning messge on the page. Maybe someone could resolve this issue with an appropriate rationale to keep the image. NorthernThunder 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek soundtracks deletion discussion

Someone is trying to delete the ctaegory Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go to the talk page, and try to keep this category in existence. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks that Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy and Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager) are not notable. Please help. --Damifb 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem would appear to be that the articles don't have enough sources. Although there is no immediate danger to the articles of deletion/merger, someone may come along eventually and nominate the articles for deletion/merger, so something should be done quickly.
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Voyager episode numbering

There are two Voyager episodes numbered as episode number 120: Equinox (Star Trek: Voyager) and Survival Instinct... But the main article of the series says there are 172 episodes, Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager), the last one, is listed as the 172°, and I couldn't find any other flaws in the numbering... Somebody could help with this? --Damifb 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Vulcan Barnstar

File:Vulcanbarnstar.jpg

Someone requested one at that bounty award thing, thought I would give it a shot! Not sure if the Vulcan idic thing (or whatever it is) is copyrighted, I made the "idic" myself using paint, but it may be too similar to the real thing (that I assume paramount owns) to be used, but if that's the case maybe someone can make something of it. SGGH speak! 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are going to be no opinions, I'll just add it at Wikipedia:WikiProject awards then? :S SGGH speak! 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Done, use {{subst:WPTREK Barnstar|message ~~~~}} SGGH speak! 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be conscientious about the syntax of interwiki links to ships when you are adding Star Trek content. I have edited numerous Star Trek articles to correct links that pointed to disambiguation pages rather than specific articles. The most obvious example is links to USS Enterprise, which is a very long disambiguation page describing eight real ships prior to the NCC-1701s. Likewise, USS Constellation, USS Intrepid, USS Lexington, USS Saratoga, USS Valiant, and USS Voyager are all names of real ships. Please check where your interwiki links go, to avoid sending readers to disambiguation pages rather than your actual target. Thank you. Maralia 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Images to be deleted

Just happened to run into this cat today and noticed the enormous amount of ST pictures in it. Some people might wanna fix some of those rationales, or they will all be deleted Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 20 August 2007 --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Too slow: we lost them. :-(--SarekOfVulcan 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Star Trek vs Star Wars

Probably an early reflection of the above change in policy but the article Star Trek versus Star Wars was recently deleted, however a deletion review has been started, anyone interested in taking part in the the review can find it Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars here.KTo288 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Caitian and (possibly) Wells Class in danger of being deleted

I thought I'd posted a heads up, but after I disagreed with EEMeltonIV's non-consensuses redirects, and a short discussion, with never resolved anything, he's put both articles up for deletion, however, do to the nature of the Wells class deletion tag, I merely removed it, although it may be renominated at a later time.

Just thought I'd let everyone know.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jean-Luc Picard discussion on talk page

Wanted to list it here, it is requested that members of the WikiProject Star Trek, being specialists of sorts in the field of Star Trek, and that take an interest in the subject, please weigh in on the consensus about the placement of images in the infobox and film section of the article. Please visit Talk:Jean-Luc Picard#Discussion of picture on infobox section - your input will be greatly appreciated, as this discussion was brought up previously by another user, but only one person commented on that previous discussion. Ejfetters 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion is still going on, but only 3 votes have been cast total, it would be appreciated if anyone else could weigh in on the subject, thanks. Ejfetters 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reformat of Template:Star Trek regulars?

Hi, All!

I was wondering what y'all thought of reformatting the table of Template:Star Trek regulars to be four columns across instead of two. Currently it's quite tall and takes up more room at the footer of articles than it probably ought to.

I've created a test in my userspace: User:SatyrTN/STR - do you think that works okay? I'll watchlist the template's talk page and here. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bakula and Trinneer Images

Thought I would start here, I added it to the new images list on the template as well. I think we should try to find better pictures for Scott Bakula and Connor Trinneer in real-world for their biographical pages. The images on their pages right now are in their Enterprise uniforms on the set. Ejfetters 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Images

Another posting here, if we could also try to find some images for Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, Colm Meaney, Nicole de Boer, Jennifer Lien, Robert Duncan McNeill, and John Billingsley - there are no images on any of their pages, and it would be great if anyone can find some. I will look also, just thought I would post it here also to draw more attention that there's no images on their pages. Ejfetters 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Voyager cast picture

I notice the publicity images of cast photographs got deleted, but if someone wants to be bold about it, I watched the episode 11:59 the other night, and at the end of it the entire main cast is seen on screen together, I dont have software to capture a screencap, if someone has the DVD's and the software, let's capture an image from the end of that episode and upload it, it should suffice because it's not a publicity image, its a screencap. Ejfetters 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move of Deep Space Nine article

Hi everyone! I've proposed that the article on Deep Space Nine be moved to Deep Space Nine (space station). It seems like it would be more helpful if the "Deep Space Nine" page were a redirect to main article on the TV series. See the discussion on the talk page. Jim 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the move has been implemented, but help is needed for fixing the enormous number of links to "Deep Space Nine". Most of these should be changed to Deep Space Nine (space station), though some should be changed to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I fixed about 60 articles myself, but there are over two hundred to go. Jim 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a memeber of this project but thought that I'd alert you all since you might have better sources, references, etc. A couple of related articles for Star Fleet Battles have had notability templates recently put on them or have been nominated for deletion. See, for example Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe)‎ and Xorkaelians. For those of you who know more about this game, its universe, and appropriate references might want to have a look at them and improve them, else they are likely to be nominated for deletion soon (but given the behavior of this editor, they might be nominated for deletion anyway as he seems intent on deleting a large part of the gaming/role-playing game articles). --Craw-daddy | T | 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sinister plot to stigmatize Trek character articles

They failed to get the articles about the Star Trek articles deleted, so now they're making sure to slap them with stigmatizing tags that basically say "What you're about to read shouldn't be relied on for any purpose whatsoever."

But just to humor those Star Trek-hating dullards, I mean, to assume good faith, you guys need to augment the Star Trek character articles with information about how the actor was cast into the role and how critics and viewers responded to the character.

I doubt this will satisfy them, they will contrive some other reason to put a stigmatizing banner tag at the tops of the pages, but at least it will show a good faith effort on y'all's part. Anton Mravcek 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally added at least two "in-universe style" tags to character articles, so perhaps I can explain. I should preface my remarks by saying that I'm a HUGE Star Trek fan. I have NO desire to see any of the articles on Star Trek deleted, and I'm not part of some mysterious anti-Star-Trek "they". (I have no idea whether "they" exist or not, but I can assure you that I have not been assimilated.)
The main problem with Wikipedia articles on Star Trek is that they are written in an in-universe style. (Anyone who hasn't encountered this term before can read about it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).) For character articles, what this means is that the article on Worf appears to be a biography of Worf, as opposed to a description of his character on ST:TNG and DS9. Here's what the difference is:
Biography of character Description of Character
First Appearance Survives Romulan attack on Khitomer Stands up during "Encounter at Farpoint" and objects to Picard's orders to flee battle.
Role of Character Development It is important to explain how Worf's outlook changes over time. It is important to explain how the writers developed the character of Worf over the course of ST:TNG and DS9.
Role of Episodes Ideally, episodes should be used to reference statements about the character. Ideally, episodes should be given in chronological order, with a description of how they developed the character.
How to describe Sins of the Father When Worf was a child, his parents and family were killed by the Romulan attack on the Khitomer outpost. Worf and his nanny Kahlest survived the attack, as well as his brother Kurn. (From the article.) The writers begin to expand upon Worf's background in the third-season episode Sins of the Father. In the episode, a Klingon exchange officer named Kurn visits the Enterprise, and reveals that he is Worf's previously unknown brother. He explains that their father Mogh has been accused of complicity in the Romulan attack on the Klingon outpost of Khitomer—the attack that left both of them orphaned as children. Worf and Kurn travel to the Klingon homeworld to defend their father in front of the Klingon High Council. There, it is revealed that the Khitomer outpost was betrayed by the father of another Klingon named Durass, but that this information was kept secret to avoid a Klingon Civil War. At the end of the episode, Worf voluntarily accepts banishment and dishonor to avoid destabilizing the Klingon empire.

This episode marks the first introduction of Worf to internal Klingon politics, a story arc that would continue throughout ST:TNG and DS9. Durass and his family would go on to become recurring villains, and many of the characters introduced in this episode would appear later Klingon-centered stories.

As you can see, I actually think that more information needs to be added to the articles—putting the character in the context of a story requires more prose than simply listing facts. Having an "out-of-universe perspective" isn't simply about "information about how the actor was cast into the role and how critics and viewers responded to the character". It's a whole different attitude towards the article, a whole different way of describing information. The thing is, an article on Worf should be talking about Star Trek as a story, and the role played in the story by the character Worf. This is different from the approach at Memory Alpha, which is desgined to provide information from an in-universe perspective.
A few weeks ago, I rewrote the article on Jadzia Dax from an out-of-universe perspective so that I could remove the warning tag. Take a look at the article for further examples of what I think needs to be done. It's possible that the other editors who slap these tags on articles are anti-Star Trek, but I really think Wikipedia needs good Star Trek articles, and right now it seems to me like perspective is the main problem.
Hope this helps. Jim 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It helps, but it might not satisfy the "mysterious anti-Star-Trek "they"". With the Kira Nerys article, I tried to put exactly one of the things they asked for (casting info) but it wasn't good enough for "them." The in-universe tag got slapped right back on. I could take a whole day and try to satisfy them but it's just not good enough for them. With the Dax article, there still isn't casting info nor critical reaction nor fan reaction info. Even if we put that in, it's still not good enough, they will think of some other reason to put a shrill "don't rely on this article" warning tag. Contrary to the stereotype, I have a day job, a night class, a girlfriend and hobbies besides Star Trek. I'm not gonna call in sick, skip class, cancel a date just so I can spend time trying to appease them.
I don't have to do this, but if I don't feel encouraged to try to do this, no one else will. The taggers? Ha! They have impossibly high standards but no time to do anything towards meeting them. Wikipedians who care more about classical music or Family Guy? They'd like to but they won't. Stereotypically superhardcore Trekkies? They can't. Who does that leave? No one. The articles will stand with those tags for months, discouraging readers from reading them and discouraging editors from improving them. ShutterBugTrekker 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I have tagged Gomtuu to be merged with Tin Man (Star Trek: The Next Generation). I do not believe the ship needs to have its own page, since it is only in the one episode. I'd do it myself, but thought it important to let WikiProject Star Trek members have a few days first. SolidPlaid 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gomtuu is entirely plot summary of the episode; go ahead and redirect it. I don't see any content worth merging. --EEMeltonIV 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it in a few days to allow time for more comment. SolidPlaid 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Customizable Card Game

I was assigned this for the Cleanup taskforce, and I decided to take it on. However, I've never played it before. Are there any Trekkies who might want to help me clean this up? bibliomaniac15 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Porthos nominated for deletion

Porthos article nominated for deletion here. Deletion discussion is here, if anyone is interested. R. Baley 04:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 26 Sept 2007 - expires 1 Oct

Resolved

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

EW Article

There's a new EW article called Star Trek: TNG: An Oral History which includes several interviews about the beginnings of the show. It seems to have a lot of information that could be useful, including descriptions of the castings of some of the TNG characters. As far as I can tell, the address of the article is a permalink. Jim 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society and Star Trek

FYI. DHowell 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Society and Star Trek at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society and Star Trek (28 September 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents section notification:

[2] is about a major problem with a number of Star Trek character articles, written thoroughly from the In-Universe perspective. Perhaps this would be a good time to clean up the articles, focusing on their Out-of-universe importance, with serious citation and media critiques and public criticisms, positive and negative. ThuranX 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Michiganotaku has tried to add some of this very "Out-of-universe importance, with serious citation and media critiques and public criticisms, positive and negative." stuff that you're talking about. But what do the people who placed the "in-universe" tags do when he does that? They revert him! Why? So they can keep complaining that the article is still in universe! Anton Mravcek 03:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nominee: Star Trek

Please see Talk:Star Trek to help pass the main Star Trek article! -- Wikipedical 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Howdy! Someone has been diligently tagging talk pages on articles in Category:Star Trek stubs with a template called {{Stubclass}}, which is fine except that one of the parameters needs to be changed. Currently the code reads:

{{Stubclass|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek|project=Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek|template=StarTrekproject|category=Star Trek stubs}}

This places the talk page as well as the article into Category:Star Trek stubs. It should read:

{{Stubclass|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek|project=Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek|template=StarTrekproject|category=WikiProject Star Trek}}

If you want to create a typical project sub-category for these to fall into, that would be Category:WikiProject Star Trek articles. I'm not sure how many of these I'll get round to changing before I run screaming into the streets, so feel free to work on them amongst yourselves, and use the recommended code in future. I would very much appreciate it. Live long and prosper - Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I, Robot references

Hello, I'm working on cleaning up the cultural references for the article on Asimov's classic I, Robot short stories. There are at least two ST episodes with titles that appear to be an homage to this collection: "I, Mudd" (TOS) and "I, Borg" (TNG). It seams plausible that at least the first one is a ref to Asimov's book (after all, several of the writers for TOS were well known science fiction authors who knew Asimov personally), but I would like some citations (after all, they could be a tribute to I, Claudius). Also, if anyone is interested in expanding upon the mention of these episodes in the I, Robot article, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Sbacle 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-canon content

What is the current view of adding non-canon content to certain specific Star Trek Articles, for example, here's an older discussion on the subject of non-canon content: Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek. There's a current dispute on the Starfleet ranks and insignia article. Opinions are welcome. Dreadstar † 07:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with licensed "non-canon" material since the notion of what is and isn't canon seems to be non-npov. Yes, I know Paramount/Viacom has a policy, but there are fans out there who say only TOS, TMP and the first season of TNG are canon because they're the ones Roddenberry was involved with; and then folks who say DS9 and VOY are non-canon because they're too dark; or that TFF is non-canon because it's so crappy. Etc. So, if someone wants to include in the Kirk article stuff about the Shatnerverse, or information in the Sulu article about Peter David's Excelsior stories, that's swell (even though they're primary sources). Ultimately, when it comes to canon/non-canon, I say present it all and let readers decide what they want to take seriously. However, fan publications/products don't meet the threshold of being reliable sources; their content is uncyclopedic except in articles focusing on that content (e.g. Star Trek fan productions).
At the same time, given the wealth of both canon and non-canon information, there's a bit of a balancing act to pull off by not trying to indiscriminately throw in every nugget of information there is. Many of the Star Trek articles are just plot summaries, and that needs to change (and I'll be working on it when I'm done with the Star Wars vehicles); NB edit warring at Data, Worf, etc. that I've taken off my watchlist because it's annoying to watch. However, in that current setup, with articles like Starfleet ranks and insignia there's a temptation to describe (e.g. give plot summary) for every pip that shows up on everyone's collar. That's what's happened with most of the stuff beyond TOS, and I think the reason User:Flans44 keeps wanting to add the stuff from the Starfleet Dynamics text. However, at some point there's a threshold where offering plot summary/description devolves into trivia. --EEMeltonIV 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to be encyclopedic, then you should *be* encyclopedic, there should be no dual standards. There is an accepted definition for canon - accepted by studio, licensees and fans alike - and anything else screams POV. Fan productions are in their own article because of the fact that they are an unlicensed fan productions and has nothing to do with their status as non-canon or (to the unbiased) their quality. If non-canon sources are allowed in articles about Canon subjects (such as characters) they should be clearly marked as such by having their own section. Certainly it might expand on the public understanding of these fictional characters but where does it end? I might agree that it is germain to point out the slash relationship shown between Kirk and Spock because it is a significant cultural phenomena but Joe Blogs Mary Sue about how he saved Picard's life? Canon and non-canon are complementary but independent, as far as I know there has never been any major debate over Canon inclusion other than TAS.--Kirok of L'Stok 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the project have a logo yet? I found a good logo (which is free) that I put in the userbox which might make a good one: Image:Star Trek The Next Generation, Alternate OF 9.png, there are a lot more at commons:Starfleet ranks and insignia. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Games in Star Trek

Anybody mind if I merge the micro-articles in Category:Games in Star Trek into a new List of games in Star Trek? Some have already been redirected, losing all the content, e.g. Kal-toh to Vulcan. Others e.g. dom-jot have no info yet other than an entry in List of fictional games. Would a combined article have sufficient real-world notability? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. It's got to happen now as two have been PROD'ded and one is indefensible on its own. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabo (Star Trek) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadis-kot which is pre-judging the creation of such a list as non-notable. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parrises Squares - which has only just been created following a request in this WikiProject. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Star Fleet Battle Force

An article that you have been involved in editing, Star Fleet Battle Force, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Force. Thank you. Fayenatic (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image rationales.

As a heads-up, it seems that all the screenshots for the DS9 episodes are up for deletion - speedy deletion, in fact. See Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 25 November 2007. Perhaps if someone more familiar with Star Trek could add rationales? 68.175.102.171 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing a few. I started at season 2 episode 16 and have made it through season 3 episode 1. Everything in between these episodes is fine as of this post. Rockfang (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
All of Season 1 is done. Duet (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) needs an image though. Rockfang 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Another update: All episodes from season 03 episode 10 and older that have images now have the required rationales. I'm in the process of watching the series, so I'll add rationales and/or pictures as needed as I go. --Rockfang 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Search (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

Someone might want to do a plot summary on part 2 of this 2 parter. Currently it only talks about part 1. Rockfang (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions, Nov 2007

See also redirects made by the same user: Special:Contributions/Theme.

Some of these could be saved by merging to lists or larger articles, e.g. D'Kora class starship into Ferengi, leaving redirects within the existing categories.

I wish we didn't have to spend time doing this. I'd rather be creating new content on more important things than defending work by others which is worth keeping but requires effort to do so. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about sourcing and cleaning up what you have rather creating new content? You have a large active project here. Why not do what other fiction projects have done and start improving exsisting content before it ends up in AFD. Ridernyc 07:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Kahless

Kahless (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Enterprise characters etc

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mallora also covers Arik Soong Degra, Dolim, Gralik, Major Hayes, Janar, Talas (Star Trek), Pa'nar Syndrome, Trellium-D and Erika Hernandez. The same editor started AFDs on several other articles and withdrew them "for now", but completed his nominations of the above Enterprise characters & Trellium-D. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And he's trying to AfD Lwaxana now for not asserting real-world notability.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--Major Hayes deletion should not happen. The article establishes that he graduated from USMA-West Point. That is the 1st indication that the Academy has survived during the Star Trek years.Curt314 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality in Star Trek

Sexuality in Star Trek, currently up for AfD, has been made WP:LGBT's Collaboration of the Month. If any WP:TREK members would like to pitch in they are more than welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Character Article Mergers

Alot of (mostly minor) characters have been proposed for merger into the alphabetical sublists of List of Star Trek characters. I think some more discussion about which should go through would be helpful. I'd say that about half to 2/3's of the suggestions are on target but am not at all sure where consensus lies on this issue. As an aside, I would suggest that breaking the lists up by series is better than listing them alphabetically, but that's really a decision best made by those editors who regularly work in this area. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flood of AFD underway

Several users have once again decided that Wikipedia should not have any pop culture elements beyond the bare minimium and are citing the often-misused notability guideline (not policy) that says subjects have to have significant real-world gobbledygook to be eligible for articles. Several major Trek articles are currently up for AFD including Dominion Wars and Eugenics Wars and I see they're also putting characters from Andromeda in their sights by adding the "no sources" tag which is the first step. I've already warned the Doctor Who Wikiproject to be on the lookout for potential mass AFDs -- and/or mass tagging. I recommend the AFD pages be watched closely for the next while, until the editors in question get bored ... or get the message. So far, Eugenics Wars appears to be WP:SNOWBALL for keep, although it's been up for AFD since the 3rd and no one has closed the debate yet. Dominion Wars only has a few votes so far. There have also been several nominations related to Star Fleet Universe (RPG) topics. I eavesdropped on the talk page of one of the editors involved and by the discussion it looks like a bunch more may be coming soon. (This obviously isn't completely new news given the above posts dating back to late November.) 23skidoo (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dominion War is the one up for AfD, not Dominion Wars. God, wish I could delete Dominion Wars -- the awful game, not the article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific nominations

Progress to date:
• Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions, Dec 2007

• Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) updated • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) updated Fayenatic (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) update • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
unsigned by Judgesurreal777 - 30 December 2007 • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your aims?

Just out of interest, what are the aims for this project? The Lost wikiproject and the Simpsons wikiproject (to name two TV-related projects) have a list of clear aims and tasks. I'm just asking because I've seen several ST articles listed at AFD and lots of Trek fans (whether members of this project or not) arguing against deletion for reasons such as "it's important". But surely if they are important then this project would mobilise to improve them. Where is your list of core articles? What do your 100+ members spend their wiki-time doing? (this isn't an attack or anything -- I'm genuinely curoius). Brad (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one and I don't really know to be honest. Aside from tackling the list of issues noted on the homepage, we don't seem to be such a well organised bunch, given our pedantic and anal stereotype Alastairward (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We currently have two separate templates linking to Memory Alpha - Template:Memory Alpha and Template:Memoryalpha. The former creates a box similar to a sister project box, only green-colored, the second is a straightforward inline external link.

Right now the inline version is the only one we use. I'd like to suggest that the sister project box version should have some use - my instinct would be to use it on articles dealing with in-universe subjects (i.e. characters, episodes, etc), and the inline version on articles with primarily out-of-universe subjects (actors, series, fandom, etc), letting the box and by extension Memory Alpha serve a role similar to our links to Wikimedia Foundation projects - showing where to find an article with a different focus (in this case in-universe material).

Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm... hello? Does this project do things beyond protesting deletions? Like, say, help make style decisions for Star Trek articles? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this question has come up on one or both of the actual templates. Memory Alpha is not a "sister project" in the way that Wiktionary or Wikiquote or Wikia are; my vague (non?-)understanding of Wikipedia style is that the box isn't the preferable one. --EEMIV (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This position has consistently failed to actually get the template (or any similar templates) deleted on TfD, and the line allowing such boxes has been stable in the relevant MoS for a week or two now. So the policy issues are mostly cleared away - the question is where best to implement at this point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a particular need for a stylized box. (This after I months ago loved it, and even went through deleting leading asterisks when someone replaced one box with the other.) In general, I'm not a fan -- articles on which they accumulate tend to get cluttered like userboxes. And I don't see anything particularly special about Memory Alpha (or Beta or Gamma or Omega) over other see-alsos and external links that make links to their material stand out. --EEMIV (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To my mind they're useful on articles where there is a wealth of material that Memory Alpha covers while Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't). The difference between our article on Seven of Nine, for instance, and Memory Alpha's is dramatic. The box-style link lets us treat Memory Alpha as an extension and counterpart to our article instead of as an incidental "People who like reading this article may also enjoy" as it becomes in the external links section. That is very different from, say, Jeri Ryan, where the differences in focus between our article and MA's are minimal, and where I think a box link would be inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is useful for its vast Star Trek content, but I'll go with whichever one was decided as the more appropriate one as EV is right it's not really a sister project. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - at the moment no consensus exists to use one to the exclusion of the other, and the "not a sister project" issue hasn't gained much traction as an objection either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These Are the Voyages ...

At the risk of starting a minor edit war, I have removed the section from These Are the Voyages... listing the alleged inconsistencies between the recreation of the 1701-D in that episode and the original TNG episode. Another editor flagged the section last month as being unverified and unsourced and looking at it again 18 months after I first stated an objection to it on the episode's talk page, it truly is complete OR without sources. I have taken the be bold approach and deleted it from the article and moved the content to the talk page. If someone can provide a published review or article that states this info then I have no objection to it going back in, but as it stands now -- given the fanbase's dislike for the episode and Enterprise in general -- it violates WP:NPOV. 23skidoo (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it gone. The article as a whole is pretty weak. --EEMIV (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [3] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Shadows of P'Jem

I noticed that this article has been proposed for deletion by Pollytyred. Please comment at the discussion page. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note that the AFD is technically halted due to an Arbcom injunction. Basically Arbcom is being asked to create precedent as to whether episode articles will be allowed. If they rule against episode articles, expect a flood of 700+ AFDs. 23skidoo (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Character pages, WP:WAF and remedy proposal

I don't know how you feel, but I find many ST character pages very in-universe and crufty. I have added real life info to Seven of Nine, Jean-Luc Picard and Geordi La Forge, and encourage others to mercilessly milk out this fantastic BBC repository of ST-interviews: BBC Online - Star Trek - dozens of interviews of your fav actors and producers waiting to be incorporated by Wikipedia —Onomatopoeia (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trellium-D

The AfD notice from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallora is still on Trellium-D. I'm removing the notice (the AfD is over, after all), but I'd like to know what you guys want to do with it at this point:

  1. Keep it as-is
  2. AfD it separately
  3. Merge it to Article XYZ

Thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the AFD decision stands, and just needs implementing. If Trellium-D is left as a standalone article, it will get deleted, as it is not quite notable enough on its own, but some info on it is needed in Wikipedia in order to understand several episodes. Merge and redirect it to the episode article Impulse (Star Trek: Enterprise). I have just merged List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek:Enterprise; only this article remains from that AFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images from lists

Following high-level policy decisions, editors are removing Fair Use images from lists of characters. I think this is a pity, but I've looked into it and the policy seems to be solidly established. In the case of Star Trek lists, we have (or can easily make) links to MemoryAlpha, so an image is only one click away.

Now, the main character lists e.g. List of Star Trek characters: T-Z are tabulated and have a column at the left for images. Given the policy above, which we cannot change, the images will all be deleted. Is there a consensus here that the (now empty) column should be deleted from the tables at the same time as removing the images? - Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems sensible, for aesthetic purposes at the very least Alastairward (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed it from G to J here. However, comparing this to K - M on the same page, was the table clearer with this empty column left in? It serves to bracket together the two rows on each character. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

purpose?

Reading above about the images, I looked into the article List of Star Trek characters: T-Z to see what it entailed. It's effectively an undefined list of named characters from throughout Star Trek without regard; the majority of the ones I saw were one-off characters who should be served only in their respective episodic articles should they meet WP:N. Am I missing a discussion or reasoning behind these potentially limitless lists of non-notable, single appearance characters? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see them a lot like the various Star Wars "List of minor Imperial characters with three fingers on their left hand." They should be trimmed, condensed, with a link to some Wikia/in-universe wiki site. It would also be pretty daunting; I'm still wikifatigued from doing all the Star wars vehicle lists, and those weren't nearly as dense. --EEMIV (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ENT Navigation (Season 1)

Template:ENT Navigation (Season 1) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --fschoenm (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Character lists

Just to let you all know the character lists are now all tabulated.

Since it was mentioned that we won't be having pictures of any characters on the lists, I suppose we know have to reformat them to take out the blank column.

Any help with finding references, episodes etc for the various characters would be useful too Alastairward (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

X class or X-class starship

Hi. Okay, confession: I'm the fellow who went DAB happy and renamed all the class articles a long time about "X class starship (Star Trek)", which has since been undone.

However, the article titles now are grammatically incorrect: they should read wither "X class" or "X-class starship" -- in the latter, "X-class" is a compound modifier (i.e. should be hyphenated) of the word "starship." Thoughts? Preferences? I looked at the Category:Destroyer classes for some real-world guidance and, alas, they follow the same awkward pattern. Maybe it's a Navy thing. However, comma, it would be in keeping both with good grammar and the way these terms are used in Trek's secondary sources (and even Wikipedia: the leads and content in each of these articles follows the grammar rules) to hyphenate "X-class" when modifying "starship," "vessel," etc. Thoughts about re-re-re-naming these articles?

I'm inclined to hyphenate. "Akira class" or "Excelsior" class might be simplest -- and simple is good -- but appending "starship" I think adds some appropriate specificity. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Dune Reference?

This may be irrelevant, and I am terribly sorry if it is, but does anyone else wonder if the "Hakonnian Order" to which the Talaxians surrendered in Voyager may have been inspired by the Harkonnen in Dune? I seem to notice a lot of parallels in the Star Trek and Star Wars universes to Frank Herbert's works. Sue me if I'm crazy, but it seems to warrant further research. I'm on it. Anyone care to join me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.147.151 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's some kind of allusion, although I could just as easily imagine the producers around stating "Harkonnen Order," rather than a slight re-wording, if that's the kind of homage they were going for. ST has previously had, among other things, the "Corellian plague" that the crew in some episode was trying to knock out. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, not all the links to Memory Alpha articles in the lists of characters work, they have different article names to those chosen here. Perhaps we might browse through and see about fixing these Alastairward (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, new to the project here, I'd be happy to help out sometime later today if you could throw some links to the lists my way. --Umrguy42 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems to be the odd one like B-4. For wikipedia, the article was called B-4 (Star Trek). The code in the tables looks for that article in Memory Alpha, but their article is just called "B-4". I changed that entry now that the B-4 entry has been added to the tables, but I think there are some more like it in there. Alastairward (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wreck up for AFD

An article on the Star Wreck parody novels is currently up for AFD here. It's the old argument that some feel a work of literature has to be on the same level of Moby Dick or be featured on Larry King Live to be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. Right now things are going in favor of keeping, however an editor is trying to rebut some of the arguments for keeping. Do people actually lose sleep over the fact some topics are being covered here? 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

James Kirk templating issues?

Hiya. Just did a substantial rewrite of the James T. Kirk article (removing in-universe crud and whatnot), and after I saved, I discovered that the new section title I had inserted does not appear in the copy. Can someone explain if that is a templating issue or whatnot? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Space:1999/Star Trek Question

Someone possibly from this project has tagged the The Moonbase Alpha Technical Manual from Space:1999 as part of Wikiproject Star Trek. Any reason why? The only link I can think of is that Starlog also printed a Star Trek Technical Manual. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the article to the most appropriate Wikiproject that I could find. ArcAngel (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't want to remove it in case there was a link somehow. Douglasnicol (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek: First Contact

If anyone is interested, Star Trek: First Contact is now a good article. Gran2 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Next Gen images being deleted

Some of you may be aware of the growing and nearly out of control deletion attempts by users supposedly enforcing the Wikipedia policty on notability. In fact, many are abusing it to get their way. Most trek articles have been through the notability wringer already and many were canned, so far the episode articles have survived. Now, however, in another wave of deletionism, the "notability policy" has been the latest weapon of choice, and this person, Fasach Nua, is trying to delete scene images from the Star Trek episode articles, starting with first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, saying they violate Rule #8 under the fair use policy which deals with notability. They are specific scene clips from each episode the articles are about and are therefore notable to that article. An image from the episode is allowed under the fair use rules as long as proper fair use tags have been given - in which case they have been. Each article can have ONE image.

So I ask that if you appreciate the integrity of episode articles, to please defend in keeping a notable scene clip with each of them, (because God forbid, we have anything else but stark black and white text to look at when we read the article). If these deletionists win their crusade, this place will soon be devoid of anything pop-culture. Televison shows, music, movies, comic books and video games will all be ousted, and you'll have nothing but articles on math, science and dead people who no one really cares about. Please voice an opinion under the trek images currently proposed for deletion such as ST-TNG_The_Neutral_Zone.jpg where I voiced my concerns. Cyberia23 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to sound that I'm derailing the discussion, I've noticed this a lot, I contributed a lot to the Space:1999 articles and there was mass deletion attempts. For example, this article Dragons Domain was deleted as non-notable despite in my opinion, being fairly well written. It seems there is far too many deletionists, and a lot of time it seems to be driven by people who don't like a particular show, at least that's how I see it. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it continues on and on. What I'm really sick of (and unfortunately it's the very nature of Wikipedia itself) is that anyone can edit - both a boon and a bane. Not only do you have to deal with endless vandalism, it really ticks me off when one person, out of nowhere, can come up to an article and slaps down a bunch of tags, and/or simply edits the article their way and delete things they don't agree with - without the consensus of anyone who has contributed to the article. Just delete delete delete, don't bother WORKING TOGETHER to come to a compromise. They have to have it there way, and fight tooth and nail to get it. And as a contributor, you simply can't undo their changes, remove their tags or flip flop everything with reverts because it violates policy. Instead, you have to go through the whole long-winded procedure of getting consensus and votes of others to back your arguments up and all that BS just to make them stop - IF THEY STOP – There are always other underhanded ways of twisting this place to their whim. They're like a virus - it's easy for a virus to infect you, you have to work the hardest part in getting the cure. Once cured, the virus just mutates and infects you again, then you have another long tiresome drawn-out procedure of becoming cured again. The people against seem to have the easy job - those for have to climb a damn mountain. And even if you get votes on your side, REMEMBER, WIkipedia is not a democracy. Some facist admin can just overrule the majority and side with the enemy and not have to justify any reason for it. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is as well, some people have differing standards, especially when it comes to citing sources, notability or article quality. One guy marked a bunch of my Space:1999 articles as not sourced, yet when I contacted him asking why, and what standards he needed, I never got an answer. Wonderful. Regarding episodes, if the article is well enough written, giving a good summary of the story, special features like particular notable model or effects work, as well as guest stars among others, I don't see why episodes don't have their own articles. Douglasnicol (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Independent, reliable, secondary sources usually do the trick. If an episode article can only recite the plot, it shouldn't exist. --Phirazo 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to rain on your inclusionist parade, but does each episode article really need a picture? How does Image:STCodeHonor.jpg improve Code of Honor (Star Trek: The Next Generation)? I would say an article should have a picture if it makes a reader understand the subject better, not to make the article "prettier". Prettiness should never get in the way of keeping Wikipedia free. --Phirazo 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't approve of the completely sterile look and articles, as policy stands right now, articles are allowed to have a picture, so that is why I gave them one. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Article's are permitted to use as many images as required, provided they meet WP:NFC, from Wikipedia:Nfc#Policy_2 criteria #3a states "...one is used only if necessary", and #8 "Non-free content is used only if ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding". TO include images to avoid a sterile environment is not acceptable, wikipedia has a clear objective, and the inclusion of these images is damaging to it.
Cyberia23 stated "...as policy stands right now, articles are allowed to have a picture...", I have never seen such a policy, if Cyberia23 could provide a reference to that poliocy page, that would helpful. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is there isn't a rule that says: "articles can't have pictures" and I don't see how theya re damaging anything. It's deletionists like you that are damaging this place. Cyberia23 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course they can have pictures most articles do, you can even in exceptional circumstances have non-free pictures! However the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and by needlessly infecting articles with non-free content is pushing that goal further away, and harming the project. If you are interested in wholesale copyright abuse Memory Alpha is out there, but it has very different objectives to this site Fasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is something I'd like to ask. I did this in my Space:1999 articles with rationales, but would screen grabs from DVD's with properly written rationales be ok? Douglasnicol (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is well off topic, but the main issue criteria for using copyrighted image is that "...one is used only if necessary", and "Non-free content is used only if ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding", the rationale should demonstrate how you meet this criteria. The first port of call should be This page. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No offence, but I don't see how its well off-topic. The dispute seems to be regarding images, I was wondering if screen grabs from DVD's are ok. I don't own Star Trek DVD's but if it was fine and met the requirements on that page I was wondering if it was okay. Douglasnicol (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Screen captures from DVDs are no different from other copyrighted materials, and must meet the requirement for inclusion. I was looking at a few space:1999 articles, and I would imagine most of the images would have to go, if you look at criteria 3, one image should serve multiple purposes if possible, e.g. There are seperate photos of crews and uniforms, yet one photogarph both illustrate crew and uniforms! When I said it was off-topic, I wansnt intentionally being rude, I meant that there are forums dedicated to issues of copyrighted materials, where you would get a range of opinions, and experiences. This forum is meant for wikiproject ST, which is why I am discussing ST images here. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The BS I see is calling harmless inclusion of a screenshot as "damaging Wikipedia". These episode articles have been on here for a long time now and I've seen attempt after attempt at ridding this place of them and other TV show epsiodes, saying their "uncyclopedic", they're "non-notable", it's "niche fanboy crap no one else cares about", and - well since they're all still here! Everytime someone higher up apparently overrules their deletion requests and allows them to stay. Therefore these continued attacks on them are getting old. Seems like now, if you can't kill the articles outright - destroy them in small doses. They started with eliminating trivia sections, then trying to cut the plot sections out and limit them to only a few sentences, now lets go for the images, one by one. Its just the latest attempt to rid the site of episode articles and I'm getting really sick of it.

You say, "oh their's Memory Alpha" - yeah whatever they suck in more ways than you know - Wikipedia was first, and there is far better written stuff here than that place. More people come here. And dare you revert someone there as causes a shitstorm you wouldn't believe. I know, I tried once to be part of that community and left. They're episodes are all broken down in a scene by scene outline separated like Acts in a play. It's like reading the damn script - I thought a more storyline approach would be better but OH NO!!!

Anyway, I think I've been here long enough to know when images are being abused, - go look at the X-Files episodes and see what I mean or hell, look at half the entry on Marvel super heroes or the the individual Transformer toys. If you think the Trek Eps are bad, there are far worse image abuse issues here than that. Were talking 5 - 10 pictures (all copyrighted and tagged fairuse) per page. So good luck in your clean-up effort - you've obly begun scratch the surface. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit there is an active campaign against non-free images that has been going on for some time. Non-free images were removed from every "List of X episodes" last May (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use). I've seen people argue that Wikipedia shouldn't have any non-free images at all, which is ridiculous. Articles on fiction are the hardest hit simply because most articles on fiction focus on recent, copyrighted fiction (i.e. hundreds of articles about Star Wars, and only one for most "classic" fiction). The best way to keep everyone happy is to use non-free images in a way that illustrate the subject in a way words cannot. You don't help your cause by saying articles with only text are boring, since making an article pretty isn't a good reason to include non-free images. --Phirazo 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not denying that many uses of non-free images here on Wikipedia are excessive. There is a point when it becomes too much and I agree to some deleting. The trek article images in fact, like the X-Files images, used to be all shown in the episode list, and they too were removed. I feel though, if an image is used in good taste to help spice up an article I'm all for it. I think maybe some of the trek article images (even those I've uploaded) are probably not the best examples of images that could be used for a certain episode. Case in point, the image of Tasha Yar you brought up for "Code of Honor" isn't the best image for that episode. Another scene, perhaps the one with Yar fighting Yareena in the battle to the death would be better, unfortunately, that was the best image at the time that I could find from that episode. In any case, I don't think use of episode images damage Wikipedia as Fasach Nua suggests. There is always room for improvement though. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that image uploading can be abused. Myself, I try to limit it in articles I use to one, perhaps two, and even then try to use the image in more than one page. I have seen pages where they are saturated with images, apparently things like Pokemon were notorious at one point. Images sometimes illustrating for instance, spacecraft or vehicles can be more justified as trying to picture them if a reader is unaware of what they look like can be difficult. It's true that even among Non-Trek fans there can't be many people who know what the USS Enterprise looks like, but less known stuff. A balance does need to be struck. Betacommand's bot has filtered out a lot of crap, especially on those images where there is no proper copyright notice or rationale. One Wiki article I was looking at had had four or five images removed yet there were still two left, I think you can agree six or seven images in one article can be excessive Douglasnicol (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the images were deleted. Deletionists won. Expect more of the same. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Images will keep getting deleted as long as people act on the misunderstanding that you can have one image per page as a matter of course. You can't. You guys are approaching this question from entirely the wrong angle. People seem to think: "Okay, I have this new episode article, they all have an image, so now let's see which image I'm gonna use this time". Wrong. As long as you work like that, you'll never get valid fair use. What you need to say is: "Okay, this episode article contains a discussion of this particular special effect that was commented on in so many reviews. I really can't discuss this special effect without showing it." Or: "this episode article contains the appearance of this particular new race of extraterrestrials, whose weird appearance was commented on as something really special in the news. I can't really give the reader an idea of what they looked like without showing them." If (if!) an episode article contains something like that, then you can use an image. Only then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Class/Importance labels for project talk pages

Greetings! Is there any interest to refactor the project template that is used on the talk pages so that it uses the {{WPBannerMeta}} format? This allows for the project pages to have the usual class (like "stub", "start", "list", etc.) and importance labels (like "High", "Top", etc.) assigned to them, so that statistics can be (automatically) collected and shown about the status of the project. If there is some interest, either reply here or drop me a line on my talk page and I can work on this for you. I may not be able to get to it right away, but am happy to do so when I have the time. Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can do it, or get someone to do it, that would be great :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. See Category:Star Trek articles by quality and Category:Star Trek articles by importance (and the appropriate subcategories). You can now edit the talk page project tags to update quality/importance ratings for the pages. The best way to see how to do this is to look at the examples that have been assessed already (such as can be found on Talk:Star Trek, look for the {{StarTrekproject}} template on that page). I will return in a week or so to add in the appropriate links to display the project page statistics when they are computed for the first time. Then they will be updated automatically periodically (usually once or twice a week). --Craw-daddy | T | 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulcan (Star Trek planet) AfD

Up for deletion--do the folks dedicated to all things Star Trek on Wikipedia have an opinion about the importance and/or usefulness and/or encyclopedic value of this article?[4] --Blechnic (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dilithium (Star Trek) another AfD

It seems it is delete Star Trek week. This one doesn't stand much of a chance of being deleted, compared to some of the others. --Blechnic (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on fictional characters proto-guideline

Figured I'd bring this to the attention of this project, since I think it's something that affects everyone here, the setting of a baseline of notability for fictional characters: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Feel free to comment. Ford MF (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Challenge to Episode Guide Notability

Just as an FYI, Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner? (an episode from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series) has a tag up challenging its notability. When I checked to see the rationale, they basically took the position that episode guides in general are inappropriate. So presumably if they can get this one deleted then they will attempt to delete more episodes of more shows. I'm not in any science fiction wikiprojects atm but I thought that this was something that people should be aware of. Wellspring (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek

If you have a moment, please check out those additions. My argument (and that of others) is that being a fan production it should not have such a large section - representing undue weight. Also the idea of inserting it into the list of Star Trek Films is just silly. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)--Killerofcruft (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on Harry Kim

There this whole to-do going on in the Harry Kim article; one side thinks the 'clone' of Harry dide in that one episode, others think all the original Voyager crew died; it makes my head hurt a lot. Even my link in the discussion page doesn't seem to help. Lots42 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert war is still going on. Lots42 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Homages in scope of projects

I'm in the process of improving the Galaxy Quest article. As GC is a heavy parody of Star Trek, does it belong in the Star Trek WikiProject? Do any parody/allusion type works belong there? Protonk (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the Wikiproject. Lots42 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not nay-saying it. Suggest how you would choose to integrate it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm trying to think of more full-bodied homages to star trek among feature films and none come to mind. To me, galaxy quest is a labor of love made by filmmakers who understand intimately what made star trek wonderful and what made it absurd. It is a full fledged story all by itself--in other words, it isn't a slavish parody. but at the same time it isn't just influenced by Star Trek. Galaxy quest couldn't exist in a world without star trek. Both trekker and trekkies (film) are within the scope this project. I would submit that we could accept full bodied homages on a case-by-case basis. The article (galaxy quest) right now doesn't reflect this deep connection, but the sources listed on the talk page (I've only started working on it) point to it, as does my understanding of the film. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ENT: Future Tense

Does anybody know why the Future Tense (Enterprise) episode article was deleted/redirected? The history says: "Redirect to episode list per WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#PLOT: text was only a plot summary and some trivia", but I don't see how this article was different than several others out there. --DanielPharos (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because other articles are breaking the rules does not make it right for this one to break the rules to. Ideally, we should be merging any of the episode articles that are basically plot summaries with a season list, as has been done with Future Tense (Enterprise). Detailed plot summaries can be trans-wiki'd (maybe they're already on Memory Alpha). — OranL (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template changes

I updated the template to include a needs-picture tag, and it adds the page to a category for requesting articles. I also put in some basic documentation that I pretty much copied from Template:WikiProject Video games/doc. Cheers! — OranL (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 992 articles are assigned to this project, of which 377, or 38.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessments (beginning in July 2008)

You may have noticed that I've been going through the Category:Unassessed Star Trek articles and assessing the articles. Before any confusion can come up, I just wanted to clarify that I am not blindly going through and marking articles. I am taking the time to skim through each of them that I assess and pick out some issues that I think are pretty important to articles on Wikipedia.

That being said, the assessments are just a starting point for the article cleanup process, and it is my goal to begin a well-organized cleanup of the all of the pages within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek once all or most of the articles have been tagged and assessed. The assessment is also placing each article in several different categories based on its current quality relative to the standards of Wikipedia articles and its importance within the Star Trek Project. I believe this will be a big help down the road when the real cleanup process begins.

As always, feel free to change the assessments and issue list on the pages and, of course, work on improving the articles as the assessments take place. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments regarding the assessment process, please feel free to address them here! — OranL (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed when the Kate Mulgrew article was tagged and assessed by an editor with the WP:StarTrek tag that there might be some discrepancies in the use of rating and importance. It's difficult to read the importance assessment criteria due to the dark blue background, but from what I can discern, main characters and the actors who portray them should be assessed as "Top" importance, correct? Thus, Mulgrew, Patrick Stewart, William Shatner and Robert Picardo, for instance, should all be ranked as "Top" importance, yes? Then, if they fail any one B-class criteria (within reason) they are essentially a C-class article? In which case, should Mulgrew and Stewart be C-class due to lack of references while Shatner and Picardo would be B-class as they seem to meet all B-class criteria? (Though, Stewart's article is exceptionally close to B-class based on a quick skim) I just want to check this before I go on some sort of assessment (or reassessment) bender and find out I did something very wrong. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the criteria listed in the Importance section are things that I pretty much just made up to help keep things as organized as possible. I didn't ask anyone what they thought of it before I made it, because we just needed something down in writing to help get a basic scale going (so if you have any ideas/suggestions, please go to the discussion page and add them!). That being said, the scale seems pretty reasonable to me, and so if we are going to use it for now, I would assess the articles you mentioned above like this:
  • Kate Mulgrew played the major character Kathryn Janeway on Voyager, making her Top-importance. The article doesn't have many citations near the end of the "Career" and "Personal life" sections, making it mostly C-class.
  • Patrick Stewart played the major character Jean-Luc Picard on TNG, making him Top-importance. The article is missing several references, making it probably C-class.
  • William Shatner played the major character James T. Kirk on TOS, making him Top-importance. The article is missing several key references, making it C-class.
  • Robert Picardo played the major character Doctor (Star Trek) on Voyager, making him Top-importance. The article has very few references, making it either C-class or Start-class. I would say it's closer to C-class because it has a well-defined structure with an infobox, which makes it easy to read, but it is missing sources for a lot of the information.
Any of these articles except Picardo's could probably be argued to be either B- or C-class, and since the assessment is simply a starting point and requires no formal discussion process, I would have no problems with you marking those as B-class if you feel they are good articles. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Also, would you be able to take a screenshot of the Importance scale and add a link to the Image on my talk page along with what internet browser and Wikipedia skin you are using? You can email me the browser and skin names if you don't want to write that information on my talk page. It is readable on my computer using the default Monobook skin and Firefox 3.0, but I want to make sure this page is accessible to everyone. — OranL (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Good to know how the project's assessment scheme developed. I have no problem with the current Importance scale, just making sure I got it before I go to it! As for the visibility of the importance scale page: I use a windows-based PC with IE 7. I can grab a screen capture, but where to upload and link it to you..? ZueJay (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As long as you crop-out any elements of the internet browser's user interface (the address bar and such), you can upload it to Wikipedia. Just be sure to tag it with {{wikipedia-screenshot}}, since it does contain UI elements from Wikipedia. I'll also take a look at the page on IE7 on my computer as well. Thanks! — OranL (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, here it is located at [5]. The colors make it a tough read, for sure; it doesn't show up fuzzy like that in reality, I think that is the png file-type. I assume that the image is temporary and we can delete it shortly, yeah? ZueJay (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is very strange. The color I specified to use for the background here is "lightgray", which shows up correctly in Firefox 3, but I guess IE 7 wants it to be dark blue! I'll change it to reference the specific color hex code, so it shouldn't appear differently on other browsers. Thanks for pointing out this issue! — OranL (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Try it now. — OranL (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Those are really different. No wonder you were like, "What the hay?" I have seen some other quirks with the color coding, like adding a red-border around Template:Infobox racing driver and Template:Infobox rally driver. When you're all set with the image I uploaded, feel free to delete it. I don't know if the comparison one can be used for educational purposes elsewhere? ZueJay (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh. It's beautiful now; totally legible. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Star Trek participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Novel pages

I plan on starting articles about Trek novels. Is there anything special I should do to register them here or anything else in general??--UESPArules (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Star Trek participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please add future comments to Talk:Star Trek (original series)#Requested move.

I see that it says in the style guidelines that we're supposed to use the retronym Star Trek: The Original Series. Too bad I thought it was a good idea to change every link and page title I could find to Star Trek before I read the guidelines. Oh dear...so much for 'be bold'. Star Trek: The Original Series, list of Star Trek episodes, list of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, Star Trek (disambiguation) and all 30 season 1 episode articles (including The Cage)have all been altered in this fashion.

In my defense, some of the people on the Star Trek: The Original Series discussion page suggested it first. Observatorr (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted some of my edits but I can't undo my moves. Observatorr (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Try just moving them again, putting the original title as the move location. — OranL (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally moved Star Trek: The Original Series to Star Trek (original series) and then moved it again to Star Trek (1966 TV series). I reverted the second move but I can't revert the first because it says the article name Star Trek: The Original Series already exists even though it's a redirect. Observatorr (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been listed at WP:Requested moves#27 August 2008. Please let me know if I can be of anymore help! — OranL (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He's dead, Jim

So, when did Kirk actually die? A bit of a kerfuffle in James T. Kirk is brewing regarding the date when the rest of the world thinks he bought it and when he actually took the dirt nap. As well, I'd appreciate thoughts on how to express that in the infobox? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much? It can be left out of the infobox... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how much it matters here (maybe instead of "death" we could have "Last appearance: Star Trek: Generations (deceased)" or something, since AFAIK, there are NO "canon" dates of birth or death (at least for now, who knows, maybe the new film might come up with a DOB). But if you're insisting on a date of death, I would go with Generations (and since there's no exact date given, it would be impossible to be more specific than that). Anything extra could go in the regular text. The "supposed" death from earlier would be too much info for the infobox, IMO. But, as they say, YMMV. umrguy42 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Star Trek

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hey all, I've nearly completed my work on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in terms of adding content (except for some of the cast members); before and after... But it still needs some work, especially with copyediting. If you guys could lend a hand on working on it, it would be great. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Enemy Within (Star Trek)" article links Jim Goodwin to a soccer player born years after the series was created. I"m leaving this for a motivated editor. WikiTourist (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a Wikipedia page for that Jim Goodwin so I linked Jim Goodwin (actor) instead. Cheers. EnviroboyTalkCs 03:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

episodal infobox

Star Trek: Voyager episode
"Mortal Coil"
Episode no. 80[citation needed]
Prod. code 180
Airdate December 17, 1997[1]
Writer(s) Bryan Fuller
Director Allan Kroeker
Guest star(s) Nancy Hower as Samantha Wildman
Brooke Stephens as Naomi Wildman
Robin Stapler as Alixia
Year 2374[citation needed]
Stardate 51449.2[citation needed]
Episode chronology
Previous "Concerning Flight"
Next "Waking Moments"


"Mortal Coil"
Star Trek: Voyager episode
Episode no.Season 4
Episode 12
Directed byAllan Kroeker
Written byBryan Fuller
Original air dateDecember 17, 1997 (1997-12-17)[1]
Guest appearances
Nancy Hower
   (Samantha Wildman)
Brooke Stephens
   (Naomi Wildman)
Robin Stapler
   (Alixia)
Episode chronology
← Previous
"Concerning Flight" 		Next →
"Waking Moments"
List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes

Do we really need a separate infobox for Star Trek episodes (see {{infobox Star Trek episode}}) as opposed to using the site-wide standardizing infobox (see {{infobox Television episode}})? As far as I can tell, the only difference (aside from maintenance) are the "year" and "stardate" fields. The former is either ambiguous (being that we sometimes don't know between which episodes years changed) or unknown, while the latter is only occasionally known. Compare the two here and discuss please; I would personally rather use the site-wide standard (I don't actually know if there's a Wikipedia SOP or not) and implement the two extra variables in the prose when known and/or pertinent. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Burn all non-generic show infoboxes with fire. I agree, the stardate is not important to the show and is never commented upon in the episode commentary, and year is occasionally hard to figure out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise pages

There seems to be a whole raft of short pages on various enterprises and bits of design lore - can we not look at rationalising them a bit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Memory Alpha

Input regarding the AfD of the article here. -- Banjeboi 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comments on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyeballs

Hiya. There's some disagreement at Talk:James T. Kirk#Other portrayals about how much weight to give to fan-film portrayals of Kirk -- I weighed in a bit, and while there made a bunch of copyedits, trimmed some plot summary, added some real-world citations, etc. Although there's lots of red, that's mostly from paragraph shifts; the changes -- particularly the flat-out removals -- aren't that extensive, and I added some semi-specifics at Talk:James T. Kirk#Copyedits.

However, per my wont, I also managed to piss someone off, this time User:Arcayne. He stopped short of 3RR, but at last word essentially said he plans to undo these edits once the 24-hour window lapses. Between, and after, then, I'd appreciate some other project members to take a look at the edits (and a request or or two!) and weigh in. I'm pretty sure my edits are worthwhile -- and reflect, at least for the time being, a good compromise on the fan-film portrayals while folks dig around for concrete sources about specific actors' notable(?) roles. But, being an acerbic prick also means I think highly of myself, so some more eyeballs (from a group whose members I'm pretty sure I mostly haven't annoyed too much recently) would be appreciated.

Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Changeling, DVD captioning vs Startrek.com

Ok, a minor question, but one I wanted to pass by a few more sets of eyes. A recent change to The Changeling changed the name of the alien probe from Tan-Ru to TONRU. The rationale given was that the latter matched the DVD captions. The former spelling is used on the official site.

First off, do the subtitles say this? My TV is broken and computer dilapidated, so I can't check my own discs. Secondly, if they do disagree, which source should we use? Alastairward (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Infortunately I can't check the voracity of the caption for you, sorry. However, should it be legit, I would state the StarTrek.com first and the captioning second.

The alien probe, the Tan-Ru[2] (referred to in closed captioning as the "TONRU"),[3] was a complex piece of engineering at the intersection of badassery and the 1960s.

I would use/cite the closed captioning secondarily because the captioners can be/are frequently working from incomplete information or even just the audio itself—meaning they had to interpret the spelling on their own initiative. The editing policy leans/points in the direction of keeping whatever information may be pertinent to the given topic. That official Paramount/CBS provided materials use two different spellings just means that we be clear that they did so, not that we need to make a decision as to which is "right". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
pd_THOR got it. Given how little space it takes to include both, I don't see a reason not to mention both. As for which to use throughout the article, though, I'd lean toward startrek.com because, as pointed out, subtitles sometimes don't have actual scripts, etc. Checking a third source -- Star Trek Encyclopedia? page preview at Google Books may be available for that entry, or maybe even peeking at Memory Alpha -- might help. --EEMIV (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
New information! StarTrek.com actually says "Tan Ru" (w/o the hyphen, see [6] & [7]). Memory Alpha generally stipulates where their information differs from the Encyclopedia, and while it doesn't in this instance (MA link: Tan Ru), I don't have the the latter to check. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping both if the caption is legit, I just had no way to be sure on that point at the moment. Alastairward (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm A GA, not a bricklayer

James T Kirk should porbably be re-evaluated, as its been spiffied up a lot over the past month or so. A peer review was initiated yesterday, and all are welcome to add their comments there. I think its better than B, but what do you folk think? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Qagh

Just dropping by to let you know that qagh is on AfD here —G716 <T·C> 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

James T. Kirk - is it A-Class?

Can someone re-assess James T. Kirk? I am unsure how to generate the template for review at the article level - there appears to be some conflicting info (and I would genuinely like to know how to do it if someone can take the time to show me how), and I don't want a mistake on my part to slow down the process and movement to GA and FA. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Federation and Empire board game needs references to remain

I de-prodded F&E on the grounds that a Trek board game that's been in print for over two decades is very likely to be verifiable, but The Rules do say that articles must be backed up by something better than our word. It needs reliable sources if it is to be retained.

Can you please help? Neither the prodder or I are board game hobbyists or Trekk(ies|ers), and the subject seems too old for Dr. Google to work his magic. We're forced to rely on your aid as the people most likely to know what to look for, where to look for it, and the relevant conventions. Tips on more effective ways of bugging people than this message would also be appreciated.

The board games project has also been poked. PS. That relevant changes link on the project page is a marvellous invention. --Kizor 11:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Same ship, different seasons, different articles?

Why does the USS Defiant and the USS Enterprise have, separate, small articles of the same name and design? They need to be merged into a single, significant article. There's no reason to separate the same ship into its own, separate, stand-alone articles for different seasons. That simply adds bandwidth and scatters information as broadly as possible. Some of the USS Enterprise articles are almost stubs. Colonel Marksman (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have links to aforementioned articles? It would be a time saver. ArcAngel (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As requested. One article for all the ships, with branches off to their own individual articles. Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Qo'noS

I merged in the information from the redirected article on Qo'noS here. I felt that it deserved a mention if the other Star Trek homeworlds were either merged into the race articles or had their own articles (example of the former and the latter). Alastairward (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding book pages

I am wondering whether this WikiProject has an opinion on which of two situations is better: an article about an entire series of books -- for example, Star Trek: Titan -- that briefly explains the plot of each book in the series within one page; or an article for each individual novel within a series, such as The Devil's Heart. I own quite a few Trek novels and can definitely provide more information as needed ... I just want to be sure I'm doing what's necessary. ThatBajoranGuy (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Look around at existing articles and do as they do. If someone disagrees about their notability etc, let them worry about that. If an article is to stand a better chance of remaining, try and find something on it's notability within the franchise or wider world. Alastairward (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Names/Titles

I'm seeing some inconsistent things in the names of titles. Some have just the episode name, and some have the episode name with the series in parens. ex. "Episode Name", vs. "Episode Name (Star Trek: Voyager). Is it ok to move the "Episode Name" ones to a new title? — Ched (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK .. reading through the dab stuf on this project page I think answers my questions - we're using re-directs, and avoiding the series in title unless it's ambig. hmmm ... ok, think I understand what we want to do (Spock's Brain) stuff. — Ched (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Starship classes

Somewhere, somewhen, I raised the point that the individual class articles have lists of ships of that class that duplicate info. at List_of_Starfleet_starships_ordered_by_class. Additionally, in many cases these starship classes are themselves non-notable -- e.g. the New Orleans and Norway classes: how can a class be notable if none of the members of it are? Even marginally notable classes seem only to inherit their notability from notable ships in that class -- e.g. is the Sovereign class as a whole all that significant? or is it really just the 1701-E that we care about?

To this end, I've started amalgamating the separate starship class articles to a corner of userspace. The next step will be to merge some of the citations (preferably to the ST Encyclopedia, rather than just episodes), which are formatted better and more consistently at List_of_Starfleet_starships_ordered_by_class. However, there are a couple of sticking points that I'd appreciate some feedback on:

  • Is this a good idea at all? I really think it's silly to have separate articles for the USS Defiant and Defiant class starship, since pretty much all the real-world development information is identical between the two. For the folks at Paramount/Viacom, after all, the idea of an entire class of ships stems from the establishment of one particular vessel; the producers create the nuances for the USS Defiant, or a USS Enterprise, or a USS Reliant...and then those concepts get expanded out to sister ships to pad the fictional universe. But members of a ship class are mostly anonymous faces in the crowd. And, again, real-world encyclopedic information between notable class members and classes as a whole tends to get redundant (where it exists at all). However, in amalgamating these data, it does raise a few logistics questions, such as article size and whatnot -- is it worthwhile/smart to listify all this? I think it is. But I'd like some second-guessing and input. I suppose some of my logistics-type concerns might be addressed by my next sticking point:
  • What should the inclusion criteria be? Trying to avoid issues of WP:NOT#DIR. The reworked List of Star Wars characters, while a vast improvement over the old separate lists and lists of lists, is weak in that there aren't any concrete discrimination criteria. I oppose inclusion criteria based on non-npov notions of canon -- perhaps inclusion for classes that have appeared on screen, in licensed reference works, or for a class that has a member around which a licensed book or game is based (to squeeze the Luna class in)? For classes for which there is, or likely is, information about its real world development?
  • Inclusion criteria for the ships themselves: what should they be? Several of the lists have entries for "unnamed ships," which I think should be axed. I'd further suggest axing entries for which there isn't printed documentation of the ship's class membership. Not a big deal for most, since the Encyclopedia and StarTrek.com cover a whole bunch of them. But assessing a ship's class from it's form on screen is ORish.

Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment / a word of encouragement. I don't work in this project much, but I think that you are probably on the right track. Much of this material is probably best covered on Memory Alpha / Beta and you bring up some great points to resolve... I might suggest looking at Stargate articles, which generally seem more concice and easy to navigate, and also have less of the fluff style inclusion that you point out. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The Stargate entries seem less long-winded, although they do seem, still, mainly in-universe. The fewer varieties make structure and organization a might bit easier, though. I'll keep plugging along the next few days; we'll see how things turn out.
In the meantime, anyone with access to the STEncyc (mine's supposedly en route in the mail from a musty attic) who'd like to verify class claims and offer production info., please jump in. Memory Alpha sometimes also has links and footnotes to outside sources to backup it's bottom-of-article production info. --EEMIV (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I placed the subscription template as suggested, has it been done correctly? Alastairward (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's working, but was badly placed, although the new position may not be much better. Alastairward (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise season 1 notability

If anyone can bump up the notability of season 1 Enterprise articles? If not, it may be prudent to merge them to a general list of episodes. As per the notability test;

  • No significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity shown at the moment.
  • Their role within the fictional work must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable. How important are these individual episodes to Star Trek on the whole?
  • Any significant real-world information on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Reviews show that the show exists, we need something more than that.

Alastairward (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan film actors in character infoboxes

There's been a dispute at James T. Kirk about whether the actors of higher-end, serious fan films such as Star Trek: Phase II should be listed in the infobox of the character (for example, see the box of Spock). Users at the TV and Film wikiprojects were of the general opinion that only actors from official, licensed productions should be included. What say you?

See also the straw poll at Talk:James T. Kirk#Fan film inclusion poll. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirk/Spock

This homo-erotic article deserves deletion, it certainly is not worth its own article. user:Deus3xMachina —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Why? While I think it contains some uncited comments, it does seem properly cited. Are you suggesting it needs to be removed because of the subject matter? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Given this person's comments on the article's talk page, I believe it is the latter. Would it be possible to request an equivalent colour screenshot to replace File:Kirk Spock TMP.png? I took it from the paper which discussed the scene, but perhaps an equivalent colour screenshot would be better?? I'd do it myself, but my copy of TMP is on VHS - which doesn't exactly lend itself to screenshots. :( --Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

franchise italicization

Per this Project's MoS, I un-italicized references to the franchise in the Star Trek: First Contact article (seen here). The whole edit (including some other unrelated edits) was undone by David Fuchs (talk · contribs), saying:

Undid revision 281162426 by Pd THOR (talk) WP:TREK is trumped by common sense in this case; franchises are italicized as same">

Following-up, does this Project's MoS need to be changed, or does this project's consensus have any bearing on that particular article? For what it's worth, I concur with the unitalicization of the franchise name when used as it differentiates it from The Original Series. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't just strip formatting so it's convenient for us. I've never seen any official source use anything besides Star Trek for talking about the series; ex. [8] All the reviews I have read (if they bother formatting), follow a similar convention. In other words: there's no reason for this MoS rule (another reason why defunct wikiproject guidelines should be trashed on site.) --11:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "STARTREK.COM : Episode". STARTREK.COM. CBS Paramount Television. Retrieved 2008-01-05.
  2. ^ cite to StarTrek.com
  3. ^ cite the DVD specifically
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_4&oldid=1083187442"