Talk:Star Trek (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of your opinion on casting choices. Any such messages will be deleted.

Star Trek (film) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-06

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use this page as a discussion forum. See talk page guidelines.

Archives
Link	Date Archived
Talk:Star Trek XI/Archive: 2007-01-18	2007-01-18

Contents 1 Archive Complete 2 GA 2.1 Fail 3 Abrams NOT Directing Trek XI? 4 Symbol 5 Interview 6 the move 7 Previous edit 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 8.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Result

[edit] Archive Complete

I just finished archiving this talk page. I didn't move any disscussions from the archive, because they did not appear active. I started at 13:14:40 on 2007-01-18, and finished at 13:53:10 on 2007-01-18. I added a table of archives above. If you have any questions, post here or on my user talk page. --Ashfire908 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You were never properly thanked for this. Thanks, Andrew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCSWowbagger (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA

Wait until the film is released to nominate it, o and you missed this PLEASE DO NOT NOMINATE FILMS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AS DETAILS WITHIN THE ARTICLE MAY CHANGE BEFORE IT IS RELEASED. M3tal H3ad 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a copy of what I wrote here We discussed this before in Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)#GA_comment (there's also another comment in the section below that) and I also recently put a hidden comment to not include future films, mainly due to their lack of stability as the release date comes closer and there is a fury of new details, plot summaries, box office figures, critical reviews, etc. Also I'd say that this film is not going to be released until 2008, where a lot of details can change, there's a possibility of it being cancelled (highly, highly doubtful, but possible), and the cast changing. I'd wait for it to be released and then renominate it a month or so after the surge of editing dies down when it's released. It looks like a really good article though, so keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fail

Look, it's unstable. I bet when this film is out the article will have radically changed. No sense in nominating it now. Wiki-newbie 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the film is not even guaranteed to be produced, I have to agree. If this article was considered a candidate for GA nomination, then it would give leeway to an FA nomination. This makes no sense, considering that this article is in violation of the crystal ball policy, as there is no definite news that this film will be produced. Even if the film is made, there will be huge changes to the article -- the Storyline and Fan reaction sections are going to be entirely changed when/if the film comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abrams NOT Directing Trek XI?

http://movies.ign.com/articles/762/762183p1.html New as of February 7th. --Anonymous 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol

This article states:

However, beginning in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the symbol was adopted as the logo for all of Starfleet, and thereafter was used in marketing collateral as a universal symbol of the entire Star Trek franchise.

If I recall, the star fleet personnel on Epsilon IX in The Motion Picture have their own unique uniform symbol, where as in Star Trek II the crew of the USS Reliant have the Enterprise symbol on their uniform. This suggests TWOK, not TMP.--203.6.205.22 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* We've had this discussion at least six times before. You're right, 203.6.205. The editors have previously agreed on Star Trek II. Somebody must have snuck in and changed it without anyone's noticing. --BCSWowbagger 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

I was reading an interview on StarTrek.com where it said that they are currently planning on "Star Trek" being the title, nothing else. I don't want to move the page to that until somebody else thinks I should. For refference, http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/46176.html. Supergeeky1 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the move

I see that the move has happened, but shouldn't it have been to Star Trek (2008 film) per the WP:NC(F) (and its example: Titanic (1997 film)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should probably be Star Trek (film), per the same reasoning. Rockpocket 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

True, and redirect both (2008 movie) and (2008 film) to that. Agreed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I've fixed double redirects. However there is now a whole lot of links pointing to Star Trek XI, so if anyone fancies trawling through them all.... [1] Rockpocket 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The original is entitled Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Adding a note at the front would help matters. Have a look at The Transformers: The Movie and Transformers. WikiNew 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people already know the first film as "The Motion Picture." Also, I'm going to re-word the first line. "Star Trek is the title of the planned..." It sounds weird to talk about the title in the first line. If anyone doesn't like my re-wording, feel free to rv. Koeho 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The moving of this article was premature. The title has yet to be accepted by Paramount; the writers merely stated their intention that it be named Star Trek, with no sub-titles. I think it should be moved back to Star Trek XI until official word of the title is released. --From Andoria with Love 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the closest to an official notice we've received so far. We know that it won't actually be called Star Trek XI, so to just leave it here in the interim is "more correct" than moving it back. It's also less likely to be moved form here than it would be at "XI", so I say let it be. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the working title of upcoming films should always be used as the article's title until an official announcement from the studio. Not before. The article for the Batman Begins sequel wasn't changed to The Dark Knight until after official announcement from the studio. --CmdrClow 07:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous edit

I just saw this on here, and I couldn't help but laugh. This was already reverted.

Shatner also indicated he would play his own Father in the new movie, and that his character would oppose James Kirk's entry into Star Fleet. Patrick Stewart has confirmed that he will play James Kirk's Star Fleet Academy instructor. Stewart said, "I am pleased to be working with Bill Shatner again"

--myselfalso 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)