Talk:Star Trek

Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek

Previous discussions have been archived to keep the size of this page down.

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9

Star Trek Inconsistancies

Hmm... I don't see this around... -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you're asking here ... ;-) 23skidoo 17:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there an article that lists all the Star Trek Incosnsitancies that the Star Trek writers have introduced? Such as Voyager's shuttle problem, etc. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Condensing/reorganizing article

I'm fairly new to wiki editing, so I don't want to step on any toes with any of the "usual" editors for this page... A few thoughts on the article layout that I'd like to run by anyone who's listening: Even though the 32k limit is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule, the article size is becoming a bit awkward for dial-up connections like my own, and doubly so when editing. Of course, you don't want to remove anything arbitrarily for size reasons alone, so I have a few suggestions that I think make sense:

I'm wondering if the section on "Society and Star Trek" should receive its own article. There's quite a bit of room for discussion on this, and giving this a separate article might make authors feel less constrained about minimizing their comments.
I also wonder if Role-Playing Worlds would be better suited to a new article. Maybe "Star Trek Role-Playing Worlds"?
Although this wouldn't really shrink the article at all, if you don't like the above two suggestions, I wonder if "Role-Playing Worlds" should be at least promoted to its own sub-section. It seems dubious to me if it really falls under "Society and Star Trek" in any but the broadest sense, and it certainly has enough material to support a full section.

Again, not trying to push anyone's buttons, just trying to make a few helpful suggestions. ;-) Roger McCoy 09:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Doesn't everyone have cable modems in 2005? I'm surprised! In any event, your ideas are excellent. One of the "rules" here is "Be Bold". If you have an idea that you think is worth trying, go for it. There is no particular "owner" to any article although there are some Wiki users who might become, for lack of a better word, regular custodians of an article. I agree that Society and Star Trek could use its own article, as could Star Trek role playing. The only thing to be careful of is don't simply cut-and-paste and leave it at that. When creating a spinoff article you need to make it truly stands alone and is also well linked to the main article, lest someone thinks the article is not worthy of Wikipedia and flags it for Votes for Deletion. Have fun! 23skidoo 16:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved out the entire society and star trek section (includes the role-playing bit) to Society and Star Trek since I'm not on dialup :) The new article could use some tweaking (like a better introduction) and Star Trek needs a summary. Cburnett 17:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A summary of the new article, like a paragraph should be placed back into the main article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent Voyager section edit/revert

Before we get a revert "war" happening in the Voyager section, I've put back the statement that fans felt Voyager was weaker than its predecessors a couple of times after the statement has been deleted. The fact Voyager is not as popular as the shows before it is not a POV statement, and is balanced out by the statement the show has its supporters. IMO if this line is cut, then the remaining paragraph regarding Enterprise being controversial needs to be cut as well. I have changed the Voyager statement by removing the word "any" which may have been interpreted as POV. If the consensus is to remove it, I'm fine with that so long as the paragraph about ENT being controversial is also removed, which it could easily be considering it (like most of the material I edited out a couple days ago) is already covered in the main article. 23skidoo 14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We don't disagree with the entprise bit being cut, cut it if you want. The voyager bit needs to be though, it was the best star trek series and saying it was the worst...is not good. Mention of ratings and all that to say it didn't perform as well as others is fine though mentioing that a few disgruntled trekkies think it isn't as good as the others is POV and/or pointless. --Josquius 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But you see my point. By just stating that Voyager is the best, you are stating a POV that a lot of people may not agree with. You'll get people saying DS9 and ENT and TNG were the best as well. The fact the series is considered weaker by critics is a matter of record, but to say so you have to balance it out by saying others feel differently, and I feel the statement covers this. Just as if you were to say "Voyager is the best" (a statement I personally disagree with) you need to acknowledge that people feel differently. Granted, such is the case with all the Trek series, but like it or not, Voyager and Enterprise received a lot more negative press than the previous shows, and this is worth noting. But if one statement gets cut the other needs to be too. But I'm going to wait to see a few more votes before I do anything myself. 23skidoo 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some reasons could be given for why people believe that Voyager is or isn't the weakest series. In my opinion, Voyager suffers badly from:

overuse of the "Big Red Reset Button" which restores the status quo at the end of the episode and wipes out any character or plot advancement from one episode to the next
lack of character development or conflict between characters (chars are pretty much the same at the end of the series as they were at the beginning, especially Harry Kim, and nothing came of the "Fed vs. Maquis crews not trusting each other" promise in the pilot)
frequent portrayal of alien species as conniving and backstabbing - how many times did an enemy race betray Janeway and others?
a terribly weak portrayal of the Borg - they went from being a threat of the entire Federation to being easily outfought/outsmarted by one little ship
a lack of any sense that the crew was having trouble by being so far from home - they never ran out of torpedoes, shuttles, etc.

Josquius, what are some reasons you believe Voyager was the best series? - Brian Kendig 19:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am saying voyager is best here on discussion, not on the article. Critics are not universal in saying it is worse, some say it is the best however most see it as a middle series. I think what it mainly is is Trekkies dislike it however those who are not too into other Star Trek like it.

For Voyager being best its too late for me to go into it, I'll put them here on another day. It is mostly just a case of personal enjoyment, its the one which entertained me the most. TOS is terrible without having grew up with it, TNG is a bit boring with not much happening, DS9 goes between even more boring then TNG and one of the greatest things ever and Enterprise is a bit too much on 'T'pol, strip down to your underpants please'--Josquius 21:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I'm fine with the quality/controversy/popularity comments for both VOY and ENT being cut since both articles cover these aspects suitably. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. (I'll let others duke it out over which show they feel is the best - POV away on the discussion page! ;-) ) Cheers! 23skidoo 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to say that some fans think this or some fans think that, you need to include sources.Avoid weasel terms AlistairMcMillan 07:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exception (as stated on WP:AWT):

When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats." (Though here, too, the opinion or preference is under discussion, very little actual information is transmitted.)

How exactly does one quote "half" the fan-base of something like Star Trek......and do it a second time for the opposing side? Cburnett 08:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think we need the disputed comments in this article, because (as others point out) the issues are covered on the actual series pages. However a simple way to cite the popularity would be to just cite the ratings. AlistairMcMillan 09:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go there. There is a lot of controversy over the ratings, particularly with regards to Enterprise, with supporters (like me) of the view that they simply aren't accurate (the Enterprise article explains why in detail). Les Moonves (the man who cancelled the series) actually went on record recently as saying the same thing, except he was referring to the ratings for David Letterman. BTW I see the two statements were cut again. Maybe we need an admin to make the decision? I'd hate for this to become a revert war. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Year in film

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

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

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

Well:

That's music not films
Like every guideline on WP, it's not mandatory
Care to finish what you quoted?

In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the year in music articles.

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

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

The more I think about it, those years could be removed entirely; the information is redundant and is found by clicking the individual movie links. Either that, or move the year after the movie title, place it in parenthesis, and make it a link to the year only. So instead of * 1979: Star Trek: The Motion Picture, make it * Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). I prefer the latter as it would be more consistent with how the television series are listed above. Comments please. Commander 08:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another point, creating a consistency of style between the television series and movie sections of the article seems like one step in the direction of regaining featured article status (including expanding each movie into a subheading, with synopsis information below). Commander 08:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

End or Legacy of Star Trek

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

Talk pages now the forum for philosophical discussions? :) Cburnett 02:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten memory? No. Not for years to come. After all, several of the shows were engineered and designed to air for syndication. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think even if no new series or movies are produced, there will still be continuous re-runs, new novels and other merchandise. Avid fans will still attend conferences and new generations will discover Star Trek for themselves when they see the repeats, just like TOS has been repeated over the decades. I think Star Trek will stay with us for a long time yet! Marky1981 00:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Well, we know that a Trek XI is in the planning stages, but whether it actually goes anywhere has yet to be seen. The fact Rick Berman is involved will turn a lot of people off simply out of principle (so much for IDIC). My personal view on this subject is more along the lines of: when Star Trek comes back, will it be the same as the Star Trek we all grew up with? Like it or lump it, ENT was part of Roddenberry's universe, as was Voyager and the rest. With reboots and reimaginings under way in other franchises (Battlestar Galactica, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, pretty much every long-running comic book series, and most recently James Bond) I feel the temptation is very great for Paramount to do the same thing, and IMO a "regime change" will most certainly result in something that won't resemble what Roddenberry created. I can see the signs now: people want Star Trek to become a clone of BSG, of Firefly, of Farscape ... but by doing so, Trek will simply become, well, a clone of etc etc etc. In answer to the original question, there is simply too much Star Trek for it become forgotten. But I do feel that the final episode of Enterprise in May and *maybe* Trek XI will serve as epilogues to the franchise and the continuity that was created waaaay back in 1964 when The Cage was filmed. After that we may see Star Trek 2.0 and, hey, it might be good and it might be popular. But it won't be the same. 23skidoo 00:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Optimism = POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZERO results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+%22secular+humanist%22
8 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+secular that all relate to particular episode storylines
2 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+humanist
- one a bio of Julian Bashir
- the other.. Gene's son talking about his Gene "Later in life he was a "humanist" if you wanted to title it anything." Which doesn't sound very commital to me.
23 results for http://www.google.com/search?q=site:startrek.com+%22optimistic%22
- From an article introducing Star Trek, "Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future..."
- From a convention summary: "...remind people of Gene Roddenberry's optimistic, forward-looking philosophy."
- From an article on Nazis in Trek: "Even in the optimistic future of Star Trek..."
- From a quote from an assistant professor of marketing at Northwestern University: "Star Trek actually portrays a very violent, warlike future, but, rooted in the 'flower power' sixties, it is also ultimately utopian and optimistic."

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

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

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

I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV thing. We are supposed to avoid adding our own POV. We can report other people's POV. For example you can't say in an article "Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far" but you can say "Dan Curry thinks Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far [1] (http://www.trektoday.com/news/010305_01.shtml)".

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

The core of the matter is whether optimism is a POV. I thought this was self-evident. Nevertheless, a look at the article of optimism says in part (italics mine): "Optimism, the opposite of pessimism, is a lifeview where one looks upon the world as a positive place. Optimists generally believe that people are inherently good. They have a "positive" outlook on life, believing that given time, things will work out in the end." If that does not describe a POV, I must be missing something.

Secular humanism arises because I did not wish to delete optimism without replacing it was something suitably descriptive. Does Star Trek have a viewpoint? I think it does. Secular humanism fits the bill and is in line with the personal viewpoint of Trek's creator.--StAkAr Karnak 13:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secular humanism denotes a religious attitude that IMO is not related to whether or not Star Trek is "optimistic". It has been well documented that Roddenberry's view of his universe is that it be optimistic. This is why Deep Space Nine - the darkest of the Trek series - remains controversial among Trek fans, and why many were upset by the creation of Section 31.

There is some discussion to be had regarding Star Trek's non-religious view (very rarely is religion addressed and we hardly ever see references to earth religions) and IMO that is where a dicussion of "secular humanism" would be more appropriate. BTW the term "humanism" cannot be applied to Star Trek in any event because many of its characters are not human, and to do so would contradict the spirit of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" in which the use of a similar term is actually described as racist. 23skidoo 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does Trek have a viewpoint? Yes. How can we describe what viewpoint Trek represents without it being POV? THAT is the crux of the matter.

It depicts a world (a galaxy), where man (and eventually other species representing aspects of humanity) overcome their problems without help from higher (divine) sources. It presents this as something viable and realistic. That is Roddenberry's opinion. Is that optimistic? Depends on your POV.

Hitler must've thought that the Third Reich was optimistic. Do we care? Not really. His POV should not affect the Third Reich article. Just as Roddenberry's POV should not affect the Trek article.

As far as the SH term being racist, that would only be applicable if it were used within the context of the story. We are viewers in the "real world" where SH is a practical term.--StAkAr Karnak 14:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Man can overcome their problems. Is that a central theme of Trek? Absolutely. Fact.

How do they do so? Through their own ingenuity. What is this called? Secular humanism. Fact.

Is the Trek future a desirable one? You say yes. You are an optimist in this context. Fact.

Does coloring a reference work with opinions inform the reader in an unbiased manner? No. It loses credibility as an authority because it promotes an agenda.--StAkAr Karnak 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Since it has been nearly 3 months since anyone actually made an issue of this, I don't think there's a need to revisit the issue at the moment.23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Progress is not made by evaporating issues; it is made by resolving issues. Until a resolution is reaches, an issue is still open.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only solution I can see is deleting the article because everything is POV to some extent. At some point you have to say "who really gives a darn"? This whole issue is IMO and POV a bad case of "splitting hairs." 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is pervasive evidence that the franchise depicts an optimistic future and it's not POV to say so.23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To say that a depiction is favorable by a segment of indivduals is factual. To say that it is favorable Period is a sweeping generalization.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's based upon the statements of the man who created Star Trek and those individuals assigned to continue the franchise after his death. That's what I mean by pervasive. We're only reporting what has been said by those who made Star Trek. If you want sources there are probably hundreds. Start with The Making of Star Trek (published 1968) and end with comments made by Rick Berman and others following the cancellation of Enterprise. 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So just because a group of people who made it think it's optimistic means that their opinion is automatically a fact? What is the objection to wording things to say something like "Many people feel it is an optimistic depiction of the future"?--StAkAr Karnak 10:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The very fact that it does not depict a dystopia is evidence enough of that. 23skidoo 20:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Utopias and dystopias are relative.--StAkAr Karnak 23:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So is everything else, however if you look at Wikipedia articles related to dystopian fiction, you can see obvious differences compare to the attitude Star Trek takes. 23skidoo 23:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peace and understanding

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

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

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

Sheesh. I should quote this as a prime example of "taking science fiction too seriously" and add it with the crowds of people that put The Day After Tomorrow down because the story was implausible. Funny how some just.....just ignore that whole fiction bit in "science fiction." Cburnett 18:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If one doesn't care about the integrity of a given subject, why bother? If we're going to do something, it should be done correctly.--StAkAr Karnak 19:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you'll find most, if not all, things will contradict itself. Here's a simple litmus test that I *just* made up:

Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote violent and irrational actions to commit genocide or anything not resembling peace?
Does the overall theme of Star Trek (the protagonists aka the Federation) promote division of peoples because of differences?

I have to quickly, and unequivocally, answer "No" to both of those questions. Cburnett 20:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distilling your test while attempting to preserve the meaning of the questions:

1) Does the Federation promote anything not resembling peace?

The Federation has been interpreted by fans/writers to represent the United States and/or the United Nations. It is not a universal opinion that these organizations are bastions of peace and understanding. Mind you, I am not taking sides.

Indeed, according to Wikipedia's article on peace, there is a measure of controversy and nuance inherent in the term.

Likewise, to say that the Federation's ideals promote understanding implies compromise; yielding. That is not entirely accurate.

2) Does the Federation promote division of peoples because of differences?

No, but do they promote unity on the basis of equality? If the Federation is presented as being superior ('our heroes', as it were), unity is achieved only when antagonists admit their error and acquiesce to the protagonist. That is not understanding and does not seem to me to be true peace.--StAkAr Karnak 00:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, you did *NOT* maintain the meaning of the questions. Promoting violence is *NOT* not peace. Promotion of division is *NOT* not promoting unity. They are very grey terms and the wording of the terms is not intended to be negated such as you've done.

Secondly, of course ST has a US bias.....it's MADE in the US. I certainly hope you are not expecting ST to cast Russians or Indians. As such, it is much more likely to be US-centric and influenced by american culture.

Finally, you haven't even come close to convincing me of why "while helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable. Cburnett 03:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Peace and understanding" are "very grey terms". That's what I'm getting at.

Star Trek "has a US bias". Bingo. "While helping to spread peace and understanding" is objectionable because it is United States-POV. Why not say that "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading western ideals."? Wouldn't that be accurate and NPOV?--StAkAr Karnak 14:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying western ideals do not include peace and understanding. And, no, it's not more accurate. I don't recall ST ever having fast food, nor anything resembling materialism. Cburnett 15:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying western concepts of peace and understanding are a matter of opinion.

Perhaps "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while spreading western views of peace and understanding."

I want to acknowledge the belief that Trek displays these concepts while stating that it is biased toward a POV.

As far as fast food and materialism, I do not claim that the Federation corresponds equally to the US in every aspect. The ideals in question are those on peace and understanding.--StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the end, the "peace and understanding" are defined in canon of the show. There is no need to qualify it to anything else. They won't match western ideals and, as such, would be completely inaccurate to say they are.

If you want a "forum" to expound upon what ST stands for then start Star Trek ideals or Star Trek culture or something. But you best not make it about just your views of what "peace and understanding" mean. For example, the very low-key of materialism of Federation and the complete materialistic culture of Ferengi; Klingons' jump to violence (much more so in Enterprise than the other series); etc. Cburnett 19:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Doctor: I don't understand, why are we pursuing the entity if not to destroy it?

Picard: We're not hunters, Doctor, nor is it our role to exact revenge.

D:: What do you propose? We track it down, greet it warmly, ask if it would mind terribly not ravaging other planets?

P: I don't deny that it may be necessary to fire on it, but I look on that as a last resort.

D: Why? Why not just kill it?

P: I want to try and communicate with it.

D: What?

P: We know from our own experience that our shields will protect us, so long as we're in no danger, I will make every effort to communicate.

D: To what end?

P: If we can determine what it's needs are, we might find other sources to supply it.

D: It's needs are to slaughter people by the thousands. It is nothing but a giant killing machine.

P: Doctor, the sperm whale on Earth devoures millions of cuttlefish as it roams the oceans. It is not evil — it is feeding. The same may be true of the entity.

D: That would be small comfort for those who have died. Defeat it. We're not talking cuttlefish, we're talking about people

P: I would argue that the crystalline entity has as much right to be here as we do.

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

Request for Vulcan comment

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

Fan-made productions

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

I don't know if they need a separate article since they are covered in Star Trek other storylines already, so perhaps that article could be expanded instead? 23skidoo 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, didn't look there. And it's Star Trek, other storylines for the record. :)

I propose they be deleted from Star Trek and the most notable ones (I have no clue which are) under Star Trek#Other storylines. Cburnett 18:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Movie summaries

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

As long as they don't duplicate too much of what is in the separate film articles, I have no objection. BTW how long doe it take for the powers that be to make a decision regarding Featured Article status? That ominious "candidate for removal" notice has been up there for weeks. 23skidoo 18:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplication only to the extent that the series does. A quick non-spoiler paragraph plot outline and the series cast that star in the movie (or something else) and possibly a screenshot. If I were wanting to find out more about a specific movie ("I saw a movie that had whales in it but don't know which it is") then I wouldn't want to sift through all of them to find it. Cburnett 18:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant. And since the TV series blurbs pretty much have eliminated discussions re: popularity, controversy, etc. it's probably good to avoid same in the movie summaries (though of course these matters can be and are discussed elsewhere in the article). I tweaked the intro to reference the fact early planning for Trek XI is underway, and that European releases continued to number the films past STVI. 23skidoo 03:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ST universe discussion

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

Thoughts of topical inclusion?

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

Cburnett 03:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

I disagree. Cburnett 20:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

How many episodes?

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

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

Conflicting definition of "episode." startrek.com considers two-parters (even if shown originally as one such as pilots) as two episodes but DVDs consider (e.g., amazon [2] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000127LW2/)) them as one episode. I think clarification of "episode" is necessary. Same story line (not to be confused with story arcs) or smallest unit of playing (~1 hour on TV)? If we go with the former, two parters are one episode, which brings another problem of two-parters spanning seasons like TNG did for several seasons. Cburnett 20:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Although initially shown as two-hour episodes, productions such as "Endgame" are rerun as 2 separate episodes. FWIW, I think each has its own production number as well. You mention cliffhanger two-parters, and I think these are a precedent for counting all two-parters as separate episodes, given their later episodic broadcasts. The exception would be "The Cage", because I don't think it has ever been presented in two parts (not counting "The Menagerie I & II").--StAkAr Karnak 21:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think a clarification is necessary on the main page as to exactly what an episode is. Cburnett 21:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

IMO I think it should be based upon the original broadcast format. In other words, any episodes that were originally aired as two-hour installments (i.e. Encounter at Farpoint, Emissary, Broken Bow, etc.) should be considered one episode, but episodes originally aired in two installments but later combined into two hour episodes (which I've heard was done with some TNG episodes for European release) should count as two. This requires a bit of research, since Voyager in particular aired a number of two-hour episodes. On the other hand, UPN has also taken two unrelated episodes and aired them as a two-hour special as well -- it will happen with the last two episodes of Enterprise -- and these should be considered separate episodes since they were not produced with the intent of being shown as one episode. I think that makes sense. 23skidoo 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that should be simple to figure out. Just go through the episode guides at startrek.com and see the air date (or just look here at WP since that's where I copy air dates from). If they're the same then take one away from the total production count. Cburnett 04:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Correction to my previous calculation; there were only 98 episodes of ENT, since "These Are The Voyages" was only one hour. This brings the grand total to 726.--StAkAr Karnak 18:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does Broken Bow count as one episode or two? It'll be syndicated as a 2-parter. 23skidoo 19:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I prefer to count two-hour "telefilms" as two-episodes (as they air or presumably will air in syndication). Most of the episode guides, including the semi-canon Encyclopedia use this method, and the production numbers used on the shows reflect this as well. It also gives a nice round number in the statement:

"Star Trek originated as a television series in 1966 There have been five live action Star Trek series and an animated series, altogether comprising (as of May 2005) a total of 725 individual aired episodes (not including the original unaired pilot) and thirty seasons worth of television."

(Yeah, I'm the one who added that a few months back.) (And OK, that's not really "round", but it's a multiple of 25, which is pretty cool.)

Seriosuly, though, I think the production numbers are enough to confirm this. Most telefilms were given two sets of production numbers ("Encounter at Farpoint" was 726 and 101/102 if memory serves) and a gap for the two was created between other production numbers. In addition, clipped episodes were created with two sets of opening/end credits for each (and a few scenes trimmed to make up the time), so I think it's fair to count them as two.

The telefilms that I remember were "Encounter at Farpoint", "All Good Things...", "Emissary", "The Way of the Warrior", "What You Leave Behind", "Caretaker", "Dark Frontier", "Flesh and Blood", "Endgame", and "Broken Bow". I think "The Killing Game" aired with only one set of credits, but was actually just clipped by UPN to create the appearance of a single episode. (The DVDs confirm the list I give here as accurate. Odd trivia: No two live-action series had the same amount of telefilms [0, 2, 3, 4, 1].)

One way to put it would be 10 telefilms, 705 other aired episodes, and the unaired original pilot, making for a total of 715 hours of commercial television. (Misusing commercial here to mean "with commercials", and accounting for the 30 minute animated episodes. And I'm making the very dubious step of counting "The Cage" as an hour with commercials.)

Of course, if it's that big a deal, maybe we should cut the numbers entirely, but I'd really rather keep them. --Roger McCoy 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek XI article?

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

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

Redirecting articles on races

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

[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Indrian) Indrian has been consolidating a lot of character/races into a single article.

List of races made into a redirect:

See Talk:List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters for some explanation by Indrian. Cburnett

I've reverted a number of them. As I say, having a small article on a minor race redirected is one thing, but there are some major articles that have been eliminated.23skidoo 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that WP:FICT is semi-policy and there people that disagree with it. I am one of them. You can't make a gray spectrum into black and white without controversy over where the line should be. WP:FICT sets the line very near one end. Cburnett 01:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT is only a semi-policy, true, but does seem to be a good compromise between those that want this stuff deleted and those that want it kept. No information is lost and someone searching for a particular race or character will be able to find it easily through redirects. As for the gorn article, I did treat this differently because the material was all fanon (at least, the article itself and its talk page identifies it as such). If a wikipedia article is supposed to be factual and verifiable, it should not have made up stuff in it even if it is made up stuff that a large portion of the community likes quite a bit. If I am mistaken and this is not strictly fanon and is actually from a non-canonical source such as the animated series or the novel line, two sources I know little about, then I apoligize. However, if it is fanon, I stand by my move to eliminate the information. If I put a line in an article on Calvin Coolidge that he conquered Mexico and outlawed drinking milk because someone had written an amusing story in which he did just that, it would be considered vandalism and properly eliminated. I see no difference when it comes to a backstory created by fans of a fictional species. I also disagree that any major articles were eliminated. Some major races were merged, but only when the articles were relatively small. I was not touching Cardassian or Romulan, or Klingon, or even Augment. If Betazoid or El Aurian were to stay and later get bigger, no one would be preventing these articles from being broken out again. Indrian 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not even going to address that horrible analogy. Cburnett 03:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a bad analogy. I do not think fanon belongs. Have you read the Gorn article? There is some pretty silly stuff in the fanon section (though not as ridiculous as my analogy), assuming it was just made up for the fun of it, and you can correct me if it was not. I realize now that I failed to catch that the section below the fanon was from a published non-canon source and do apoligize for that oversight and accidental elimination of that material. That is what we have article histories and reverst for.Indrian 04:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

My comment about the FICT policy (which I never heard of until today) has been made in the appropriate place. In terms of the fanon issue, according to the Wikipedia Project Star Trek article (I'm too busy to look up the direct link to it) states fanon should be noted as such but it doesn't prohibit it from being included. Some faith should be placed in regular editors such as Cburnett and myself (to name only two) who keep close tabs on many Trek articles and can and do jump in to make the appropriate corrections and reversions. If someone added to the T'Pol article that she was a dancing green elf from Alpha Centauri, it would exist in the article only so long as it takes someone like me to notice it. 23skidoo 14:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding over WP:FICT. First, please note that it is not policy but a guideline, and that it was established by heavy consensus after a public discussion that ran for weeks. This is mentioned on the FICT page, even if Cburnett overlooked it.
WP:FICT was created after a flood of relatively unknown characters (from Tolkien, Harry Potter and Pokemon, mainly) were nominated for deletion (by, I must add, a seemingly malicious user who was blocked yesterday). Generally, the outcome of those votes is to merge them. The idea behind WP:FICT, therefore, is to merge short articles into comprehensive lists (e.g. Horses_of_Middle_Earth rather than stub articles on each individual horse). This allows information to be better organized and more easily found.
I'm not an expert on Star Trek, but it seems to be me that important races (e.g. Vulcan, Bajorran etc) should have their own articles, and less important races (anything featured in just one or two episodes) is better accessible if kept in a List of Star Trek Races. IMHO and YMMV.
But anyway, people using WP:FICT as grounds for deletion of anything are clearly mistaken as to the nature of that policy. Hope that helps.
- Yours, Radiant _* 14:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Motion pictures

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

I'm still learning how "prettytable" works. Is there any way to narrow it a tad so that the image of the Enterprise-E can go below the Enterprise-A? I think it would look better that way than the current format that leaves the Ent-E as a bit of an orphan. Alternately, perhaps the two images can go side-by-side, below the header and above the lead paragraph for the section. I don't know how to make images go side-by-side properly. 23skidoo 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats not "prettytable". Pretty table is just a preset style. The length of the table is totally dependent of the information found inside of it. I shortened the names of the films to fix this. (ex. being Star Trek III: The Search for Spock -> The Search for Spock). I think the image we have of the current Enterprise needs to be replaced with a higher quality and more adaptable size. Then hopefully it won't look so out of place. I'll see what I can get from one of my DVDs. K1Bond007 23:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

My bad - I thought there was some difference in width coding with the style. Anyway, it looks better. Of course there's now a bit of blank space. Perhaps there's a possibility of adding images of other vessels from the movies (i.e. V'Ger, the USS Grissom, the STIV probe), or alternately character shots? (BTW my computer problems appear to have been rectified (fingers crossed). 23skidoo 23:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

DS9 console game

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

New Voyages additions

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

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

References???

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

There is the Trekkie article. There are a whack of reference books out there, though. Star Trek may well be the most written about series in history. I'll dig up a few and see what I can add. Someone may need to tweak the formatting as I'm not sure what Wikipedia style is for references. 23skidoo 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

To create wikistyled references for inclusion in articles the easy way, go to wikibib (http://www.qwikly.com/WikiBib/Encyclopedia.html) put in your information and press the button. It makes a formatted citation for you which you can copy into your article. Rick Boatright 04:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Too late. But there aren't overly many so if I have time I'll try and run them through the template (of if anyone else wants to, feel free). Although FA seems to require the references be included within the main article, I think a separate article on Star Trek reference works would also be worth creating. An excellent resource for checking release dates and publishers is The Complete Starfleet Library (http://www.well.com/user/sjroby/lcars/index.html) website. Most of the books I added just now are ones I own, but I added a few additional titles I've yet to obtain from checking this site. I tried to list books that covered the entire franchise, or the start of fandom, except for a couple of seminal works that were based upon the making of TOS alone. 23skidoo 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Umm well I hate to say this, but none of the references listed in the actual Reference section as far as I can find are actually "referenced" (keyword here) in the article. This is a section where specific information throughout the article is cited (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). What you've added is just supplemental reading material. Additionally, I disagree with the creation of a Star Trek references page considering what I've said above. The creation of a "List of Star Trek books" (perhaps a better title) type page, however, would be fine. Books that analyze Trek films, novels, the franchise etc.. ones like those you listed. K1Bond007 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Further reading" would be a better header for this list, as I don't think it's possible to create a bibliography (which is what is being asked for here) in such a collaborative effort. Most of what I write is the result of personal knowledge, not going through a book, except in the case of news-related items which are usually annotated with a link to the page from which the information appears. It would be impossible, for example, to cite references for Enterprise because, to date, no non-fiction book has been published in which that series is featured. My personal knowledge of the Star Trek franchise comes from books such as Inside Star Trek and The Making of Star Trek, the latter I last read 20 years ago. Many of the books listed have been passively cited in the article, but if you want a quoting of chapter and verse, there's not enough time to go through them all.23skidoo 13:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Going through the list for FA status

A featured article should:

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

What I think we need to work on:

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

This is not the case all the time.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Reorganization

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

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

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

From Star Trek Further Reading:

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

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

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

I don't know if including the episode lists into the main article would be a good idea. With 700+ entries, it would make things a bit list heavy and I have learned that the "judges" for FA status do not like lists. The article James Bond was rejected for FA status and one of the reasons given was because it included a list of all the Bond books, despite this being considered vital information. Length is also an issue - if the article becomes too long it can be detrimental to it being selected. I personally wish the FA rules could be changed so that sets of articles could be nominated, rather than just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. In many respects, the Trek franchise is a huge jigsaw puzzle, and the main Star Trek article is simply the box. 23skidoo 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. I meant that the links above which were a list on Star Trek Further Reading should be included into the article. Not the pages which are lists themselves. Something like: Star Trek: The Original Series made up a total of 80 episodes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My bad. That makes sense. 23skidoo 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's some ideas for sentences:

Star Trek is well known for its technobabble that heavy relies science and technology leading to somewhat of a Star Trek's version of Physics.
Star Trek's fame in culture has caused many references to Star Trek, likewise, Star Trek has made many references to other celebrated works.
Star Trek's view of the future is similar to our own but holds many differences. The timeline of Star Trek shows how divergent our current history is from Star Trek's.

-- AllyUnion (talk)

"light Next Generation"

From the article:

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

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

Actually, it could be said that DS9 had a rough start... as with any show... and that it really picked up in the latter seasons. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the light vs. dark was an issue when it came to why DS9 wasn't as popular as TNG. I know the anti-Berman backlash was starting around this time, while some people rejected DS9 because Roddenberry didn't create it. It was a darker show in terms of the fact all the characters weren't luvy duvy and some people didn't like that. I agree that the mass audience started to fade because, for one thing DS9 and TNG were on the air at the same time and there was some feeling of overkill (this was years before audiences became used to having multiple franchises such as L&O and CSI on the air). Interestingly, the headlines about "is Star Trek dead?" that erupted over the last year or so with ENT were basically carbon copies of similar doom-and-gloom headlines that were published during the first season of DS9. 23skidoo 19:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In repsonse to Ally, there are other people who were fans of TNG, that preferred the earlier DS9 seasons (while Piller was the driving force on the writing team) and lost interest in the last year or two. AlistairMcMillan 19:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

When did Star Trek first go into Syndication?

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

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

Memory Alpha confusion

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

I don't really care that MA is ST-only, that's irrelevant. For one, List of Star Trek: TNG episodes beats the pants off of MA's list (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation#Episode_List).

A little quid pro quo.

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

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

Putting articles up for deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Naked Now (TNG episode), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Code of Honor (TNG episode), etc.
Creating "move this to MA" template: Template:Move-To-Memory-Alpha
Be incivil: User:Avriette/Task List#Star Trek-specific cruft
There's even a link namespace thingy for them: MemoryAlpha:Star Trek: The Next Generation

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

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Star_Trek"