Talk:Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Former featured article Star Trek is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2004.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts. It has been rated High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Section for Themes in Star Trek?

I don't know enough to do it myself, but seems like this article would benefit greatly from a section that elaborates on the themes explored in the show. I'd specifically like a discussion of the utopian ideals of the original series, and how it evolved into a more rough-edged "real world" version of itself by the time Enterprise came around. Also a discussion of how war, racism, etc. are displayed. Happywaffle 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Definetly. I second your comments Happywaffle. You speak the truth.--P-Chan 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. My suggestions as an avid trekkie and literature graduate, also got a First Class Honours mark for my dissertation on music in science-fiction films 1926-2004. Give me a go if you like the below and I'll crack on over this week.

My suggestions for Themes: Exploration, Family, Dealing With The Unknown, Racism, Politics, Religion/Spirituality, Utopia and Dystopia, Human(oid) Rights, Time Travel, War, Implications of new technology. Sound good for starters? Probably a couple of hundred words on each should suffice. Luke niceshortname@hotmail.com


Although this doesn't quite fit in this section... I would like to say that generally, in the beginning of the article, that the Star Trek characters are NOT altruistic! In fact, many of the philosphic themes in Star Trek attempt to discredit altruism, whoever wrote that there was wrong... If no one else, Spock was certainly NOT altruistic at the very least... He believed in rationally and logically serving his self-interest, which was in his case, exploring the universe... If I were to compare the overriding philosophic theme of Star Trek to a popular philosophy, I'd say that Star Trek's philosophy is most similar to Ayn Rand's objectivism than anything else. (Logic and rational self-interest (selfishness) while respecting the sovereignty of others as long as they do not hurt you.) Or at the very least Aristotlienism... Just my comments. If you want evidence of this philosophy being expressed in Star Trek, feel free to email me! ^_^

-Anonymous Well-Meaning Editor (joseph@eaglestock.com)

[citation needed] Hmm, I think I'd have to disagree. Spock, altruistic? He sacrificed himself "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one" That's altruisim right there. I guess I'd have to have a nice discussion with you about this. (Email sent) (content reverted).


There is a difference between altruistic behavior, and altruism as a society or practice. In fact, Nicholas Meyer or someone once commented on how Star Trek III totally reversed everything that was in Star Trek II -- that, instead of being "needs of the many", it became "needs of the one" outweigh the needs of the many. Also, "outweigh" does not necessarily mean one eliminates the other needs. In fact, I always felt Spock's comment was illogical -- he was going to die anyway, whether he acted or not, there was no loss to himself by saving the ship because if he didn't save the ship he would have been dead when the ship was destroyed. As it was, he actually saved himself by saving the ship, so that the people in the ship could save him! That means he actually committed a selfish (non-altruistic) act!

69.181.188.254 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophically, altruism is inherently selfish because it gives one a good feeling. But ignoring that, Spock didn't know (at the time) that by saving the ship, he would eventually get to live again. At the time of Star Trek II, the writers probably didn't even know what they were going to do after that movie. Even Spock doing a "brain dump" into McCoy was probably an afterthought, because all that we had was "Remember." At the time of his death, he had only planned on McCoy returning to Mount Seleya (sp?) with what was left of his self. Since the books are not canon, we can't say anything else beyond that. — Val42 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Susan Sackett

The reference to Susan Sackett in the introduction should be deleted. First of all, she was Gene Roddenberry's secretary, not his "assistant writer." Second, she didn't start working with him until 1974, long after the end of the original series. (Both of these statements are per her Wikipedia entry.) I have nothing against her, but she had no significant impact on the development of the series, and she doesn't belong in an introduction to the entire Star Trek mythos. Jhlechner 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make the changes if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done as requested above by new user. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation to Malay

 
25%
  Translation In Progress ----- (ms) Star Trek → (en) Star Trek ---- (more info)
 


[edit] Criticism is kind of strange

It could be argued that the Federation is socialistic while the Romulans, Klingons and many other races are governed by psuedo-fascist systems, however there are capitalist systems as well. What about the Ferengi, don't they fit the definition of lassez-faire capitalists? Obviously reference should be made to their devotion to classical liberalism or "unfettered capitalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 18:55, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


__ I've had this conversation with hard-core anarcho-libertarians before. Essentially their argument is that Capitalism is the highest form (and only valid form) of human endeavour and anyone who thinks differently is a dirty frikkin' commie hippy bolshevik. The thing is that Star Trek has claimed, in various episodes, that the basic wants of all people can easily be met by replicator technology so there's no need to engage in dog-eat-dog laissez-faire commerce. Instead, people spend their time exploring things other than a work-a-day job. This leads to advances in science, the arts and whatnot. On the other hand, Star Trek does depict various merchants, traders, miners, businesses, etc. and makes no claim that commerce is dead or that there is any sort of social-coercive re-distribution of wealth structure going on. One anarcho-lib of my acquaintance used to whine that the Ferengi were Star Trek's only depiction of Capitalists (of course he did look a lot like a Ferengi, so maybe he was projecting). In the end, Star Trek, I think, tries to make the point that there should be more to life than a 9 to 5 job. That with sufficient technology at hand, people will be freed from the rat race and mankind's spirit and mind can begin to truly flourish. The idea that a prosperous society can (and, perhaps for moral reasons, should) provide for the basic needs of all its citizens while still promoting self-reliance and risk-taking is an idea that seems to stick in the craw of many modern so-called Capitalists. Much like Vidal's comment that it is "insufficient that I be successful, my friends must also fail" for him to feel fulfilled, the modern Caplitailst seems to feel that it is not sufficient for him to succeed, but others must suffer (preferably horribly) or he cannot feel fulfilled.

Star Trek is hardly "Socialist." On the other hand, it's not for real. We might as well be arguing about the horrible un-fairness that none of the characters ever needs to go to the bathroom.

This section should also be renamed "Criticisms" rather than the current "Hostile Criticism" to allow the nature of an objective encyclopedic entry be asserted and not a biased spin on the section, the readers should judge for themselves if the criticisms are hostile or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeamerPi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by stevegray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There are many problems in the criticism section, and I think it needs reworking. The "pseudoscience" criticisms didn't reflect very well the reference sources used. Neither were attack pieces, they simply wrote interesting analyses of which technologies in star trek were scientifically plausible or realized and which were implausible. Both references acknowledged that Star Trek made no pretense that it was factual or accurate. Star Trek never pretended to be science, but were "entertainment". The term pseudoscience does not apply to fiction which admits it is fiction. OMNI magazine is used as a source for the Ross critic who feels Star Trek is communistic, which is very doubtful. I've read 1/2 the article, can't find the rest, but there's no suggestion in the first half that the OMNI piece is interested in anything other than the physics questions.
  • I suspect that overall the criticism section is guilty of imparting undue weight to some criticisms. Just because some criticism is published in some fashion doesn't mean it must be added to the article here. Normally, entertainments like television programs, movies, etc., are criticized by media critics for issues like production value, story line, performances, etc. But the criticism section here seems to pull in quirky complaints from relative obscurity.Professor marginalia 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The criticism section is definitely unbalanced: no FA/GA article uses the term as a dumping ground for any negative criticism. Criticism is both negative and positive, and should not give undue weight over Star Trek as one of the most popular and influential sci-fi institutions. Alientraveller 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it became a dumping ground. I did find copies of the Ross essay but can't confirm that it was ever independently published. It looks like a self-publish so far. I fact tagged it to stir up a cite, but still think it's undue weight. It doesn't look sufficiently noteworthy to me-all I see so far is that it's stirred just slight attention in a few blogs, but so what? There are a million self published opinions blogged daily, but that doesn't make them noteworthy.Professor marginalia 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There used to be a whole separate article "Criticisms of Star Trek", which was kind of ridiculous, and seemed to be little more than a battleground for people to argue about whether Star Wars is "better" than Star Trek. I mean it's a TV show, get a life. Anyway that article was, quite rightly, deleted and the material that wasn't dependent on blog references was merged into this article. However even the stuff that's here now is pretty weak and pointless - the issues about declining ratings for the later series can be or already are included in the relevant sections; as noted there is in fact no "criticism" of the show for promoting pseudoscience in the cited source; and referencing a minor columnist/journalist's thoughts and opinions seems a bit irrelevant as well. I'm taking an axe to some of it, and the rest of it should probably go as well, or at least be moved into other parts of the article. --Nickhh 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please use a phaser rather than an axe next time; you took out a reference that was re-used further down. The footnote makes it clear that only one page of the cited source is available on-line; unless you have a copy of the whole article, you have no grounds to delete the statement as unreferenced. Perhaps I should delete the link to the Internet Archive and merely cite the original with no link. Does a source cease to be verifiable just because it is no longer on-line? I assume not, as printed materials are allowed as references.
I think it was me who merged part of the "Criticisms" article back into this one (in demonstrable objectivity) when it was deleted. However, the Prof's points above are well made, and I won't object if the whole section is now deleted, as no-one was able to add verifiable sources for the more weighty criticisms that have already been removed. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason I took out the reference was it didn't suppport the claim that was being made of it (that the show was being criticised for promoting pseudoscience). When I removed the text from the article, the reference went too of course. I didn't realise it was also being used as a source for the Ross essay - but as far as I recall it wasn't used as the source for that in the original "Criticisms" article, nor did it actually appear to be about the Ross essay. That essay is available online elsewhere so there can be a direct cite to it - as there used to be - if it is considered an appropriate element of this article. Also I note that another editor has now removed the weasel words from this section - but with the result that instead we have some very bold original research eg "productions of late .. have been formulaic .. lacking in depth". Anyway I guess this is all pretty academic as there seems to be a pretty clear and well argued consensus on this talk page that the section can all go anyway. It's all either undue weight, original research or POV. Or rather was. --Nickhh 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Just for the record, could someone post a link here on the talk page to the complete Ross essay, even though we've decided that it should not be referred to in the article? How about the Omni article - is the whole thing online anywhere? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem now adays

Something that I would like to be added to the Star Trek series of articles somewhere. I have one major criticism about how the current star trek series are being handled. They have completely abandoned Gene Roddenberry's original idea of space exploration. The whole series is founded on the idea of exploring space and having fun! It is about learning and discovery and our future as mankind. It is about how we should go forward as a civilization to the stars. Not this crap about time travel and battles and other nut-case stuff as seen in Enterprise, not sitting still and waiting for people to come and attack you as in Deep Space Nine, and definitely not about a sitcom in school as this new Enterprise movie is going to be about. These types of criticisms are NEVER seen in the articles. Am I the only one (other than my father) that has this view? The whole idea of star trek is about discovery and exploration and most most importantly optimism. The one reason I see that we won't see another good star trek series for QUITE some time is that society in general today is pessimistic. Star trek was optimistic about the future, and THAT is why it worked so well. The current mad attempts at making profitable series/movies are just nuts. The current idiot directors/producers have blamed it on "franchise fatigue." I was kind of ranting there but I hope my point came across. Ergzay 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to self edit myself but I have a few more things to add. Some things that were good about Enterprise were some of the earlier episodes namely ones like Civilization which were about exploration. A type of series we do not see on TV today is the exploration genre. We also hardly ever see optimism anywhere, especially in the movie/television industry. It is so EASY to make a good star trek series yet some of the best directors/producers are struggling with the concept. You simply need to be optimistic, use a space exploration concept, and in every episode have the cast meeting new and interesting races/planets/nebulae/cultures/social ideas/etc. Another movie that was similar in many ways to star trek in this concept was the original Stargate movie (not the idiotic fight fest of the Stargate SG1 set of series). Ergzay 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is that it's really your point of view - talking about rubbish involving time travel and battles is a criticism that can surely be equally validly aimed at the original series - one favourite episode "City at the Edge of forever" involves time travel, and many of the better TOS episodes involve the federation's battles with various Klingons - conflict is in many ways necessary for drama (a problem which seemingly came to a head towards the end of Roddenberry's life when his insistence that the Next Generation crew could not have arguments because they would have outgrown such conflict caused problems with the people having to actually make interesting drama out of that). Your concerns are probably better expressed in the various fan forums than on this site - because surely an encyclopedic article must limit itself to describing the history and nature of the Star Trek we have rather than becoming a wish list for the ideal Star Trek you might hope somebody could revive. PaulHammond (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems Gene's utopian fantasy extended to the idea humanity only survived by removing all interpersonal conflict. Even in a utopia, people can have ambition; notice how those with ambition are treated: as villains. Trekphiler (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the charges that Julius Caesar's enemies leveled against him was that he was ambitious.--RLent (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek's first year launch

According to The History Channel, they said that Star Trek was first aired back in 1964, but NBC cancelled the series. However, NBC gave the series another chance and aired officially in 1966. King Shadeed 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The History Channel have made mistakes before (see Talk:Krak des Chevaliers#Walls). I personally would need a better source (or at least a specific attribution with programme, episode, and date) before I would include that. Perhaps they meant the original pilot was presented in 1964, but rejected. Quite a difference in meaning. 71.204.204.249 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The copyright at the end of the NEVER-AIRED "The Cage" is 1964. Other sources (Extra Features on one of the Star Trek DVDs) has Roddenberry stating unequivically that he approached Desilu in 1964 with The Cage.
Either this person heard wrong on SciFi, or, SciFi was in error. The Cage never aired over broadcast TV, and was only shown to test audiences at the studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct, The Cage was not seen by the public until Paramount released the home VHS in 1986, in a Color & Black & White version that transitioned between Color for the parts that were used in "The Menagerie" and B&W for the parts that hadn't been seen yet. Gene Roddenberry appears in an introduction on the tape. JoeD80 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The third paragraph is almost entirely unsourced POV. Its only reference is an article by somebody arguing that Star Trek is sexist, oddly given as a source for saying Star Trek addessed feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohsoh (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that reference covers several issues and supports the whole comment about the 1960s series. I've moved it within the paragraph. Most of the rest of the para seems factual, non-controversial and self-evident to me; what elements of it do you consider POV? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
POV--
  • The protagonists are essentially altruists
  • whose ideals are sometimes only imperfectly applied to the dilemmas presented in the series.
  • The conflicts and political dimensions of Star Trek form allegories for contemporary cultural realities;
  • the original Star Trek television series addressed issues of the 1960s
Ohsoh 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider the first to be contentious. The other three are all supported by the reference, e.g. the paragraph in the external source about episode "A Private Little War" under heading "Militarism and Peace". - Fayenatic (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Ooooh. Rarely do I get an opportunity to review something so fun, I thought I'd pounce on it! Definitely some concerns though:

  1. The third paragraph in the lead is a POV piece that is not properly discussed or referenced in the main body of the article. In addition, the lead overall fails to summarize the article (for just one example, it does not touch on the "Current status and future" section) and contains questionable and vague facts. For example, although information in the lead does not generally need citations (as it is supposed to be cited in the body of the article), statements that have a very high potential of being challenged ("The TV series alone is said to be one of the biggest cult phenomena of modern times.") definitely require a citation.
  2. The image USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT1231.jpg does not have a proper fair use rationale for this article. Nor does the image TAS title.jpg or VoyagerStarship.jpg or Star Trek poster.jpg
  3. In addition, many of the images do not have proper captions explaining their significance to the article, not to mention that all captions must end in a period.
  4. Under "Television series," the sentence "See Lengths of science fiction film and television series for more on comparative series lengths." should be taken out and re-worded to fit more appropriately in a "See also" section.
  5. Under "Television series," this: "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes and ten theatrical films (with an 11th in the works) across twenty-two different television seasons (twenty-nine, if one separately counts seasons running concurrently), making it the second most prolific science-fiction franchise in history after Doctor Who." seems a little ORish, in the sense that it seems to be a synthesis of previously uncollected facts. Is there a citation for it? It would put my mind at ease.
  6. Some statements require a citation:
    "The remastered episodes currently air in syndication while the originals appear on TV Land, MyNetworkTV channel, G4 (TV channel), Sci Fi in Australia, The Sci-Fi Channel in the UK and, additionally, on BBC2 in the UK, although these broadcasts are infrequent and irregular." (Star Trek: The Original Series (1966–1969))
    "The series currently airs on Spike TV in the United States and Virgin 1 in the UK." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999))
    "The first season is also available on the iTunes Store." (Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)) and (Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005))
    "Roddenberry explicitly intended the show to have a political agenda, as can be heard in phrases like "Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped." (Spock in 'Armageddon'). Harking of human diversity and contemporaneous political circumstances, Roddenberry included a multi-ethnic crew. Star Trek showed mankind what it might develop into, if only it would learn from the lessons of the past, most specifically by ending violence. An extreme example are the Vulcans, who had a very violent past but learned to control their emotions." (Cultural impact)
    "Parodies of Star Trek include the internet-based cartoon series Stone Trek, the song Star Trekkin' by The Firm and the feature film Galaxy Quest." (Mainly for the fact that Galaxy Quest is a parody, since the others are fairly self-evident)
    The first half of the criticism section.
    "The original series' characters are also featured in a manga." (Current status and future)
  7. The sentence "The show chronicles the events of the station's crew, led by Commander (later Captain) Benjamin Sisko, played by Avery Brooks, living on the Cardassian-built Bajoran spacestation Deep Space Nine, near a uniquely stable wormhole that provides immediate access to the distant Gamma Quadrant." under "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999)" is incredibly run-on. It should be split into at least two separate sentences.
  8. The section "Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)" seems part POV, part wishy-washy. Statements like "Voyager takes place at about the same time..." and "which is probably like the..." are not encyclopedic in nature. If there is ambiguity, it should be phrased encyclopedically. For example: "Although it is not known when Voyager takes place, it has been suggested that the series occurs at about the same time..." and then ref ref ref.
You are so full of.... Voyager actually started as a crossover episode of Deep Sleep Nine. Several episodes of both shows after the kickoff episode of Voyager include crossovers from the one show appearing on the other show. The events of Voyager do happen at approximately the same time. Encyclopedias are supposed to be definitive, not ambiguous like you suggest it should be. It is clearly known when Voyager takes place, and that is in parallel with Deep Sleep Nine. IMHO, both series blow chunx, but, it really irks me when people like you come along and pull this crapola.
  1. The intro to the "Films" section gives undue weight to the upcoming Star Trek film.
  2. There are citations (and I can enumerate them in my second review) do not use citation templates.

To allow for these issues to be addressed, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. Note also that this is only a preliminary assessment of the article and when and if these concerns are addressed, I will review the article a second time and bring up anything I may have missed the first round (and as I am very tired at the moment, I suspect that I have missed a lot). Cheers, CP 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my original hold will expire in a few minutes and the only thing that's changed from my original review is that the article seems to have become less stable. Since it's not likely that all the above changes can be made and that the article can be made stable within the hour, I am going to fail the article. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to Good Article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Available on iTunes

Er, isn't it a blatant commercial plug to mention this in respect of some of the series? Arguably it's interesting to note where and how a show can be viewed, and for example when a TV channel is mentioned it is making the point that repeats still air regularly. But should Wikipedia really be providing free advertising? --Nickhh 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trek Article Series

I think the Star Trek pages are badly in need of being placed into a series, like we would with other topics (eg American History). This will allow better access to information and re-inforce the fact that the articles deal with a fictional program. Rotovia 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trek on the BBC

I've not stayed up late enough to catch the poorly scheduled BBC showings of Star Trek, are they really showing the digitally cleaned up episodes? Alastairward (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I need sleep, the article simply says they are repeated, not that they are digitally cleaned up.Alastairward (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep on Trekkin'

Three issues. Gene "forced Paramount not to count STTAS as canon". How? Why? Source? Second, "Tiberius" confirmed as canon in "ST:TVH"? It's in Gene's novelization of "ST:TMP". (I know, I won a copy. Just don't ask me for the p#; it's in storage someplace...) Third, can somebody back up the claim "ST:V" is closest to Gene's original vision for "ST:TOS"? I've seen Making of Star Trek, which claims the idea was "Hornblower in space", but Whitfield's not exactly tops for reliability... Trekphiler (talk) 13:16, 13:21, & 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think shatners memoirs discusses the Hornblower thing, but the other half has them at the moment. SGGH speak! 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "excessive or improper use of copyrighted images"

User:Pd THOR just added Template:Non-free to the section "Television series," and I would have to agree. Before any drastic changes are made, however, we need to consider the following facts:

  1. In several cases, the pictures do not contribute to the identification of the series. I doubt anyone coming to this page would need the Phase II or The Animated Series images to help in series identification. If the images are not necessary on this page, specifically, they should not be shown here.
  2. In many cases, the images lack fair use rationales for their inclusion on this page. Specifically, the screenshots from Phase II, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise lack fair use rationales specifically for this page. In addition, the rationales of the other images are, in some cases, lacking.

Therefore, I would suggest that we remove the images for Phase II and The Animated Series from this page (there are still identifying images on the respective individual articles) and fix/update/include fair use rationales on the other images. Could a more veteran Wikipedia user comment on whether or not this would be sufficient? —LinkTiger (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Villains

I have rewritten this section, hopefully other users will think it is an improvement, but if not please leave a message on my talk page or discuss it here. SGGH speak! 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the non free tag seems redundant, as it is accusing the section of having images or audio files that are non free, when the section has no images or audio files. I'll remove it but someone can revert me if they feel the tag has a reason to be there. SGGH speak! 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a more broad history section would be more in line with the rest of the page.Oldag07 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW SERIES ANYONE HEAR ANYTHING I WOULD LOVE TO SeE RIKER AS MAIN STAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.104.174 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)