Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Old talk archived to /archive1

Contents

[edit] Need for more rational ship names (and articles)

I was surfing through (and fixing) some Star Trek "ship" articles and I noticed problems that keep cropping up.

  • Naming these articles with starfleet ship designations (NCC-#####) makes it REALLY HARD to search for and distinguish a fictional ship or topic from a real one in a Wikipedia search page. Unless you are a trekkie its hard to tell you are looking at something fictional from it's NCC number and/or if you are looking for a Star Trek ship its hard to tell which one it is. i.e. an article should be titled USS Voyager (Star Trek) and not USS Voyager (NCC-74656). The former name gives you an obvious clue as to what the article is about when seen on a search page. The later seems to violate Wikipedia's fiction guidelines as well.
  • A lot of the ship articles and sub types cited within suffer from the same fiction problems. They may tell you its about a fictional universe but it fails to tell you in the first paragraph what specific fictional work (citation) its from and its plot relevance in that work. Halfblue 16:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the first point. Searching for 'USS Voyager' gives a two item disambiguation page, the second item of which is "USS Voyager (NCC-74656), a fictional starship that was the primary setting for the television series Star Trek: Voyager.". It's not hard to find the one you're looking for from that. Using the registry numbers makes each one unique. A page like "USS Intrepid (Star Trek)" covers three known ships - Constitution class Intrepid, Excelsior class Intrepid, and Intrepid class Intrepid. "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)" would be a nightmare - this would make searching harder, not easier. Using the registry numbers makes each article unique. Disambiguation pages make it easy to tell which one you're looking for, and using the registry numbers allows people who do know the field to go easily and immediately to the one they're looking for.
Regarding the check your fiction, the Wikiproject clearly needs to work harder to make the first paragraphs relevent. That can be amended with work. --Mnemeson 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the problem:
  • If I “search” for “Voyager” using the typical tool an average user would--> Wikipedia’s search box, I get 9876 hits. I may or may not be looking for that ship with Janway on it. And even if I did narrow my search by adding “USS” as in “USS Intrepid”, it gives me 231 hits with 16 on the first page masquerading as what I may want. It would help the encyclopedic function of Wikipedia if I can cull out what I want or don’t want just by reading the titles. You have to think of the people who are not looking for USS Voyager --> that Star trek ship as well as those who are.
  • Notice how the thing in (parentheses) is for the most part descriptive, a short word phrase or date that gives a quick clue to the person culling many topics with the similar names on Wikipedia. (NCC-74656) does not serve that function.
  • The title USS Voyager (NCC-74656) is a fiction. Just as lead in paragraph for an article should not contain excessive fiction I think it is implied that the title of an article should not be a fiction. The title should be non-fictional and give you a clue as to what it is about. For example there is “Bob Russell (The West Wing)” not “Bob Russell (Vice President)”.
  • Hull numbers in (parentheses) seem to be a naming convention on Wikipedia for real ships WP:NC-SHIP
  • Hull numbers also seem to be describing the ship from an in-universe style WP:WAF which clearly states "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."
In cases where more than one ship exist, say "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)", giving an NCC number is not going to help clearity for the uninformed searcher even if they are looking for a Star Trek ship since NCC numbers are very “deep in the universe”. The show its self even gives the solution. I don’t think I have ever heard a character say they served in the “NCC-1701-D”; they just say Enterprise-B, Enterprise-C, Enterprise-D. So that would be "USS Enterprise-D (Star Trek)". Another solution is "USS Enterprise – NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" It’s not the numbers I personaly see as a problem. It is the titles that masquerade as something else to the average searcher.
Titling something USS Voyager (NCC-74656) may make sense in a Star Trek tech manual but it may not be the best thing to name it that in an encyclopedia. Halfblue 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see your points, but I'm not sure that the proposed solution helps with all of them, and I still think that in some circumstances it would make organisation harder.
  • If this person changes their search to 'Voyager Star Trek' (which isn't unreasonable if you want to change the article title to 'USS Voyager (Star Trek)', there are still 1479 results. Short of creating the article to test it, I can't be sure of how the search routine would rank the newly named article, but as things stand, the top result is "Star Trek: Voyager", from which the page as it is is a single well labelled click away. If they're just searching for 'Voyager', the name change probably won't help them all that much.
  • It's not the most accessable way of description, but use of the NCCs is highly descriptive (for people who already know - I'm not claiming it's directly helpful for a casual viewer). USS Intrepid (Star Trek) covers three distinct ships (actually four, I forgot the one in Enterprise, one of which has its own entry, two of which are redlinked. What happens to those? Merged into a single article? What about when more substantial things share a name? USS Defiant (Star Trek) should logically link to DS9's 'Defiant, but the original series Defiant served a major part in "The Tholian Web", and we learned even more about it in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Only the Enterprise, with the ability to go Enterprise-A (Star Trek) has an obvious solution to that. At this point, many articles would be left with the same titles.
  • One of the benefits of Star Trek over The West Wing is that it's slightly harder to confuse with reality - an article of Bob Russell (Vice President) might genuinely have people wondering why they didn't hear about him in American History 101 - they're more likely to understand off the bat that warp capable starship articles are articles about works of fiction (at least, I hope so ;-))
  • On the other hand, using the same convention as real ships, with the Check your fiction guidelines, I agree, is a problem. On the other hand, there are many advantages to using the numbers. If it's not too unweidly to use, say USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek), USS Voyager NCC-74656 (Star Trek) ? That might be a good solution... makes it clear they're about fiction whilst preserving the distinctions between ships and avoiding articles with the same titles. --Mnemeson 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I originally thought that Halfblue's notes on various ships' talk pages were just annoying (sorry), but after pondering 'em for a bit, I've changed my mind; both suggestions seem worthwhile. In terms of the naming convention, parenthetically adding Star Trek to the title would be in keeping with other Trek-related articles. Although there are instances of multiple vessels with the same name, most of them (and of course the ship classes) are unique. Some of the shared ship names could possibly even be condensed into a single article (just a thought). But, in general, "USS Voyager (Star Trek)" seems more apt than what we have now. I'd suggest keeping the registry number in parentheses for vessels like the Enterprises and Defiants, e.g. "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)". --EEMeltonIV 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redundant lists

Do we really need multiple lists along the lines of List of Star Trek ships and List of Starfleet ship classes? These are essentially the same article simply ordered differently (and both of them needing some love), but the former list has a few Klingon and Romulan vessels at the bottom. Do people think it would be a good idea to merge these two together? --Mnemeson 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move articles to match naming convention

I am working to improve Star Trek Voyager articles and have found that many of the articles do not match naming convention. For example Kathryn Janeway should be at Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) surely. i wont change anything until told to ofcourse. --Mad onion 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got a concensus forming above - looks like Article name (Star Trek), and in cases of multiple articles with the same titles, something else that distinguishes them, e.g. USS Intrepid (NCC-1631) (Star Trek), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)... does that look right to people? That way, Appalachian would be USS Appalachian (Star Trek), Janeway would be Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek), the Intrepid class testbed would be USS Intrepid (NCC-74600) (Star Trek), etc... hehe, I just realised how much moving is gonna be in order when we decide on this ;-) --Mnemeson 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good to me (see two headings above). --EEMeltonIV 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds great, well i wont do anything for now but as soon as there is a consensus i will start dealing with it for Star Trek Voyager. thats what im trying to improve for now. btw, how is a consensus reached. Im new here so any help would be appreciated. --Mad onion 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to put "(Star Trek)" after all starship article names, I don't see why we need to put the registration number in parentheses. For example, can't we have "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" - having two lots of parentheses looks messy and seems unnecessary. While we're talking about the move, what do you think about naming them "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" rather than "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" so they appear exactly as the names do on the ships themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky1981 (talk • contribs).

The two parantheses, I've been thinking the same for a short while now, and I think you're right, it looks messy - USS Enterprise 1701-D (Star Trek) would be neater. Inserting the periods, I have to admit to being a lot less keen on - I honestly doubt anyone would try to access the articles by typing them in, so it would make finding the articles harder. No naval ships on Wikipedia that I'm aware of use the periods inside the prefixes (although I don't know if official documentation about them uses the periods in those cases). I also feel it starts to look messier again, which it would be good to move away from. --Mnemeson 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i think the dots would look messy. also, when i begin to move articles i will make the article with just the name a redirect. so for example i will move the article Kathryn Janeway to Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) but will make Kathryn Janeway a redirect to the new article. --Mad onion 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there also some consensus that ship names that only appear once (e.g. USS Prometheus, USS Stargazer) can eschew the registry from the article title? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) -> USS Stargazer (Star Trek)? --EEMeltonIV 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think so, yeah --Mnemeson 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As tempting as it is, there's no need to go through articles to append (Star Trek) to links to ship names -- the redirects will take care of it (and I think I got all, or at least the fast majority, of double redirects yesterday). Add "(Star Trek)" if making other edits, although even then it's not essential. --EEMeltonIV 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheus Registry

The USS Prometheus (NX-59650) article addresses this to some level (and there is debate on the talk page, but unfortunately there's no consistenty as to which should be used. The Prometheus articles themselves (ship and class) use NX-59650, but other articles linking to it refer to her as NX-74913. Actually, the Prometheus class article uses both registries - 59650 at the top, and 74913 at the bottom, with no comment on the conflict. 59650 was only used on the external hull, while 74913 was used on all displays, etc, but the external hull is vastly more visible. Although I think 74913 is more likely to be right, I don't mind which we settle on it, but it would probably be good if we could settle on one, instead of the current very confusing situation --Mnemeson 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be a title for the plot summary in each episode?

This is something that seems to be different depending on what Star Trek you look at. for example Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode) doesnt have any title and simply breaks the plot up with the spoiler line. while voyager episodes have a title like Faces (Voyager episode) in this example "Story line" is used but it seems to change depending on what you look at. is there any kind of guideline I can follow so all episodes are the same? i really dont mid what we use, but i think there sohlud be an agreement on what to do here. --Mad onion 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Flashback (Voyager episode) is a good example of how to organise episode summaries -
Title, position in series
Summary of any notable non-spoiler points
'Plot'
Summary of teaser
Spoiler notice
Summary of rest of episode
I do agree we should standardise this - at the moment, it's all very haphazard. I wanted to get a load of Voyager episode summaries done this summer, but time unexpectedly closed up.--Mnemeson 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
oh well is good to know there is someone else who is working on voyager. i am going through all episodes that currently exist and making alterations to try and standardize them and i have done a few plot summaries but they do take a while. but yes we do need standardization I dont know how to go about acheiving this though. --Mad onion 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek article

I just majorly changed the main Star Trek article. I'm wondering what people think, and what else needs to be done before nominated for FAC (since I tried a Peer Review and no one commented, I thought this might be a better forum). Newnam(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Infobox Fictional Spacecraft}}

If anyone is willing; They could help me update the ships to use this new infobox. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Renamed to "Infobox Fictional Spacecraft" per the category. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-universe perspective cleanup needed

Here is what I am seeing in a lot (most?) Star Trek articles on Wikipedia:

  • the birth and death dates of fictional characters.
  • plot synopsis framed as biography.
  • performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles and devices.
  • an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations.
  • fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

Whats wrong with that? Wikipedia considers that specificaly non-encyclopedic. It is all laid out in WP:WAF. I see some cleanup where citations have been added to in-univeres articles but that seems to fall way short of Wikipedia guidelines. If you write an "in-univeres" article with citations or add citations to an "in-univeres" article you have --->an "in-univeres" article with added citations. Although using a prose style like that can sometimes be acceptable Wikipedia asks that it be used in small sections and maybe not at all since an out-of-universe perspective "will make make it more accessible to those unfamiliar" with the work in question (Exceptions).

annoying ;^)Halfblue 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related poll

Hi all, I have a question about article naming at the Lost articles, which it looks like you have already discussed, so I could use some opinions. At the Lost episode article, Talk:Fire + Water there is a discussion about whether to move it to Fire + Water (Lost). This would make it consistent with the other article titles at Category:Lost episodes. However, some people argue that appending the series title is an unnecessary disambiguation. The Star Trek precedent is repeatedly being cited, so if there's anyone here who would like to offer an opinion, your presence would be much appreciated at Talk:Fire + Water, thanks. --Elonka 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit funny..

Anyone realise that Image:IKS_Vor'cha.jpg is actually the toy version of the Vor'cha? Soemone needs to take a proper image from an episode, or if i have time then i will. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Starfleet ship classes AfD

Hey all. FYI, List of Starfleet ship classes is up for deletion. --Fang Aili talk 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)of

[edit] The Ashes of Eden

The Ashes of Eden article is currently filled with empty placeholders. Can anyone clean this article up and fill in the relevant information? shotwell 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stardate or calendar date?

Hey. Many Trek articles are inconsistent as to whether they use stardates or calendar dates. Calendar dates seem to be more accessible to the casual reader; stardates aren't particularly informative for those same casual readers. For we be including stardates at all? Would anyone like to nod their way that, at the very least, we should put the more-accessible calendar dates before, if at all, mentioning stardates? I point you toward the Jean-Luc Picard article as an example -- lots of stardates put before calendar dates, but really if want to put things in temporal context, even compared to other Trek stuff, the actual year is far more useful to me than #####.#. So . . . . ? --EEMeltonIV 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Reborn

Could someone from the STWP have a look at Star Trek: Reborn ? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What is a "virtual internet series" anyway ? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "virtual series" are just people writing stories in a series like format (20 eps. etc) - There are tons of them, that is no more notable then the rest, AfD it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - it's writing fan fiction in script format and imagining people in the parts - nn, afd tag added. Discussion is here --Mnemeson 13:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode "The High Ground" needs some attention

Eh, Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I hope that there will be some Trek experts here who will know the details of the TNG episode "The High Ground (TNG episode)". Like I said in the talk page there, I think this episode article needs to be brought up to standard, especially as it is a quite notable episode (being (AFAIK) the only one that was ever banned). I can't really write allot about it myself as I only ever saw it once, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to expand it. Thanks.--Hibernian 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Ground rewrite in process =

Should be up shortly. Wikidenizen 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starship articles.

All ship articles where disambiguated with (Star Trek) on the end some time ago -- this really isnt necessary for a fair few of them and hence they need de-ambiguating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Most of the active editors of this discussion have agreed that television episodes should follow Wikipedia's general disambiguation guidelines — specifically, that episode articles should have disambiguation phrases in their titles only if there is another article that might share that title. So it would be appropriate to disambiguate, for example, First Contact (TNG episode), but not A Fistful of Datas. It is also recommended that redirects be created with commonly used suffixes, for ease of linking and lists — so, if A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) were moved to A Fistful of Datas, the former link would continue to work.
A debate has arisen over whether the guideline should explicitly mention that certain WikiProjects (such as this one) have standards that are contrary to this guideline. The primary argument for mentioning this is the precedent this WikiProject has set; that is also the argument against it. The concern is whether this precedent is a good one or not — it is contrary not only to the guideline being formed at WP:TV-NAME, but also contrary to existing policies and guidelines at WP:NC, WP:NC(CN) and WP:D. Some reasons for maintaining this exception have been proposed, but these largely seem to be aesthetic (in particular, a fondness for consistency in titling within a subject — which, however, causes a greater inconsistency in Wikipedia as a whole). I have attempted to summarize the reasons given at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions, along with counter-arguments. I would very much appreciate it if members of this WikiProject would respond there, to see if there is an argument that I have missed, or a response to my counter-arguments that I have not considered. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(Followup) Comments are requested in the debate on whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia. There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion: Kronos One

I need someone to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos One. It looks like it'll be deleted, but if there's an appropriate list page it could be merged into, that would probably be better. EVula 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) and I have had an exchange on our talks pages about whether/when the italicize starship names. MF has gone through several Trek articles un-italicizing ship names, citing from the MOS that "Italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Emphasis). As such, his approach seems to be to italicize a ship name when it is first mentioned. I contend, on the other hand, that all instances of all ship names should be italicized, citing from the same page but a different section that we should "Use Italics for titles of [ . . . ] Ships such as RMS Titanic" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Titles). MF accurately points out that that section says nothing about space ships or fictional ships. However, a quick glance at Star Wars- and Battlestar Galactica-related pages show italicized ship names, as does sample text in Wikipedia's own section on Writing About Fiction. As for ship names, the shuttle Challenger and Challenger component of the Apollo 17 mission are italicized in their articles. Although we shouldn't necessary do things just 'cause others do, there seems to be an unwritten consensus that ship names, whether real or imaginary, whether terrestrial or spaceborne, in all mentions, are italicized.

Additionally, MatthewFenton objects on aesthetic grounds to consistently italicizing ship names, suggesting that strings of multiple italicized ships' names would look ugly? bad?. His hypothetical instance is "The Enterprise fired at Voyager while Saratoga fired at the Negh'var who in turn fired at the Sydney who also fired at Deep Space 9." My response is to look at the Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Midway, which include several strings of ships' names -- again, we're not all lemmings, but those articles' edit histories and talk pages don't have a pushback against the MOS because of aesthetics. Additionally, in response to what I think is a strawman argument, I suggested the strawman response that a better solution in instances like the hypothetical is to write a better sentence.

Anyway, I'm hoping that those who keep an eye on the meanderings here can weigh in and we can reach a codified consensus to put on the project page as to whether we should italicize ship names and, if so, whether to italicize all instances of a ship's name or just the first. I suggest Yes to the first and All to the second.

The relevant back-and-forth between MatthewFenton and I is mostly on my talk page, although at some point I stopped duplicating my responses on my page and posted only on his. Please let me know if I missed salient points, either from our back-and-forth or things I/we didn't mention.

Yes, I realize just how embarrassing it is to have an online discussion about whether names of make believe air-filled metal tubes should have slanty letters. --EEMeltonIV 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


First of all, I think you'd be better off preserving the aforementioned original discussion here, or at least archiving it, but not deleting and summarizing it. As for my feelings on the debate:
  • The fact that MOS:ITALICS and MOS:T don't explicitly mention fiction does not in any way necessarily exclude fiction. Non-exclusive language should be considered inclusive unless there is specific guidance/precedent to the contrary, which there isn't here (quite the opposite).
  • Again, the fact that they don't explicitly mention spaceships does not in any way necessarily exclude spaceships. See the above note about non-exclusive language. Again, precedent actually indicates inclusion.
  • The various Manuals of Style are guidelines, yes, and are not set in stone, but "not written in stone" is not the same as "entirely optional". They should definitely not be ignored arbitrarily.
  • WP:WAF includes a header which states that it is (1) part of the MoS, (2) considered a guideline for Wikipedia, and (3) was reached by consensus. It is not just one editor's personal preference.
  • The concocted example sentence may look awkward, but it's still proper, regardless. Style guidelines take precedence over personal aesthetic preference, given that they're consensus.
  • MOS:ITALICS makes it clear that the instruction to use italics sparingly applies to emphasis. Other uses like titles and ship names are not emphasis. It's standard English writing style.
Oh, and I see nothing wrong with debating encyclopedia articles on fiction. ‎ Fiction has an important place in culture and history, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate representing it properly on Wikipedia...
-- Fru1tbat 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timeline etc

Hi. I have been doing some work on Timeline of Star Trek, by adding a section about the actual real-life history of Star Trek timelines, and and would welcome comments about my proposed rework of the timeline there to exclude inconsquential backstory mentioned in one episode. (see Talk:Timeline of Star Trek.)

Also please note that I have removed text Rules of Acquisition which was a list of all the rules. This was probably a copyvio of a book by the same name : some of the rules appear only in that book. I have reverted back to a list of random ones from episodes, which is probably about the extent we can do.

I've also had to do something similar at Star Trek planet classifications, which had a table of planet classes taken from Star Trek Starcharts.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that copying (a) an entire fictional book (albiet small) and (b) several entire pages of an original work of fiction into Wikipedia is not really on. I would ask for help identifying on-screen planet classes given, so they can be added one-by-one to Star Trek planet classifications. Morwen - Talk 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon writing systems

I've copied text over to a separate Klingon writing systems page, as part of a proposal to break out the Writing systems section of Klingon language.

Reasoning:

  1. The alphabets discussed there are distinct from both "Klingon languages", which are typically (and officially) written in the Latin alphabet.
  2. These alphabets can also be used to transcribe English, as the illustrations show.
  3. Thus the language(s) and alphabet(s) are not tied together in the way that (for instance) the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are tied together.
  4. Readers can, and may wish to, learn about the language(s) without learning about the alphabet(s) — or vice versa. The page structure should permit this.

If this is acceptable, the remaining step will be to replace that section in Klingon language with a link to the new page. A similar link will also be placed in Klingonaase.

Translations and tags will also be needed.  – SAJordan talkcontribs 05:00, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] sources do not need to be quoted?

The page says for Canon material

"Sources do not need to be noted, because everything here is unquestionably legitimate."

This is absurd, it inherently contradicts Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction. If we are told that it is canon that Data's eyes turn blue when he goes underwater we need a source for this to be quoted in the article just as much as anything else. I propose to delete this. This is akin to a kind of implicit <ref>Somewhere in several hundred hours of Star Trek; I can't be bothered to say what now, or even tell you whether it was mentioned in dialogue or was on an illegible Okudagram, so that you have no way of telling how much weight to give it. muhahahah</ref> everywhere. I propose to remove that, and alter the section so it conforms with the core Wikipedia policies which if Wikipedia:Verifiability. Morwen - Talk 21:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange.. I dont undrestand you.. You want to be verifiable now? :-\? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have always wanted verifiability. Where have I said otherwise? II presume you are referring to my comments on Talk:Galaxy class starship, note what I said: "Material from whatever verifiable sources is welcome here. All material needs clearly marking as to its provenance, which will allow the reader to decide". Morwen - Talk 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Morwen that the phrasing, at least, is awkward, as is the initial text under non-canon. There is a tendency, although inconsistent, in the Trek-related articles to address only canon material and to excise references to non-canon material. I'm increasingly of the mind that verifiable information, whether from a canon episode or a non-canon book or game, should be mentioned in the relevant articles so long as it is also notably, i.e. not MatthewFenton's USS Pepsi (note italics).
Given a proper citation -- e.g., "According to source X or Y", and perhaps even articulating whether something is(n't) canon -- readers can make their own decisions as to how much weight to give this stuff. After all, the WikiProject text itself points out that there's debate among fans as how, if at all, to incorporate non-canon material into our notion of "What is Star Trek" -- why should we stifle that debate and not present information from which readers can make their own decisions? Too often editors assume that people looking at Trek material here are only interested in Paramount's notion of canon; but, again, the WikiProject write-up gives a heads up that some fans consider the literary material superior or preferable -- why exclude their own interests/contributions? I guess what it boils down to is, removing or excluding information because it isn't canon violates WP:NPOV, as we're making a value judgment in terms of what is "legitimate." Paramount has it's own take on what is "real" Trek, but fans don't always have to agree with Paramount -- take a look at the fan films, the popular book lines, etc. --EEMeltonIV 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did some work on this. I added
  • notes that sometimes extended discussion of non-canon material is appropriate
  • all information should be sourced
  • a warning about sourcing information from the Encyclopedia and pretending it is from the episode
  • noting that just citing an episode with no context at all is non-ideal
  • removing some excess verbiage about fans not liking Enterprise. deal with it.
  • noting that we will use spellings from scripts
  • noting how to handle where remastered version differs (we are expecting to get some new NCC numbers for example)
  • recommending citing semi-canon sources directly in text rather than footnotes, where possible
  • noting that lots of the novels are inconsistent with each other, even

Morwen - Talk 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article rating drive

shall we have an article rating drive thingy like I have seen other projects do? Morwen - Talk 12:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does a stub tag not suffice 16px‎? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, there are lots of low-quality long-winded Star Trek articles. Have a look at how the comics people do it, for example. Part of the Wikipedia 1.0 drive! Morwen - Talk 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Those ratings systems are pretty POVish imo, for example I started re-writing Weapons of Star Trek and then MeltonXI decided to join in with his "teaching skills" (introducing typos - hehe) - It's now my opinion that the article has gone from an acceptable level to a messy/yucky poorly structured article.. so where as I would rate it now a "Start" he may rate it a "B" Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's shorter, but it's better sourced and actually looks vaguely like an encyclopedia article now. Isn't that worth something? We are not aiming to be memory alpha and write entirely in-universe. I would agree with "Start" with it, though. Much more can and should be written: it's just was was there before was worse than nothing. For example this revision was dreadful. Morwen - Talk 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD Notice

The related Category:Star Trek: The Original Series actors, Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation actors, Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine actors, Category:Star Trek: Enterprise actors, Category:Star Trek: Voyager actors, Category:Star Trek: The Animated Series actors have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

[edit] Characters by Rank Insignia Question

I just added a box in the table in the characters by rank article for Riker as an admiral in "All Good Things"; however, I couldn't get a graphic of the correct insignia (I believe four gold discs inside a gold rectangle). If anyone could please put the correct graphic in, to replace the "Future Imperfect" admiral's rank graphic, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] import of Memory Alpha text

I should like to remind contributors that one cannot simply take text from Memory-Alpha and put it here. Memory-Alpha is under a substantially different licence, so unless you are the original contributor yourself, or get all the people who wrote that text to agree, it is a copyvio to take stuff from there and post it here, where it is supposed to be unde the GFDL. I've spotted this at four articles today

I'm worried we have a systematic problem here, and would appreciate help (a) untangling the Starfleet Engineering Corps one, and (b) help purging the Star Trek articles of copyvios from memory-alpha. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs

Thought I'd alert anyone who didn't know to the recent AFD debates

Also, there is rather a heated debate at

Morwen - Talk 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Earth Spacedock

Can anyone offer any citations or supporting information or ANYTHING to this article? It looks too specific to be completely made up -- it was originally copy-and-pasted from the Daystrom site, but it seems to be largely de-copyvioed now. So, where does this info. come from? --EEMeltonIV 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just stuff made up by DITL. DITL are nice, they put stuff that they made up in white. This was all in white. I have removed the made up stuff now. Morwen - Talk 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD roundup

Members of the project may be interested to see

Morwen - Talk 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blish

Any idea where we would put an article about the James Blish series of Star Trek adaptions? They were just titled "Star Trek", "Star Trek 2", etc. There probably isn't enough material to warrant separate articles, but I could do one about them in general, based on the books themselves, the reprinted introductions I have, Fontana's notes, and Voyages of the Imagination, for starters. Morwen - Talk 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Star_Trek_b8e1.html"