Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Standardized cast list

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

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

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

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

Template:Dated episode notability

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

When you're poking at episode pages...

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

AfD nomination of Noonien Soong

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

Next/last episode box for TNG episodes

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

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

Check some stubs please

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

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

Character name formatting

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical music in Star Trek

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings, Fellow Trekkies

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

Category:Star Trek soundtracks deletion discussion

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

Other articles in danger!!!!

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

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

Voyager episode numbering

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


Vulcan Barnstar

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

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

Interwiki links to ships

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

Images to be deleted

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

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

New guideline on fiction: Delete Star Trek-related articles?

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

Deletion review for Star Trek vs Star Wars

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

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

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

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

Captain Jean-Luc Picard discussion on talk page

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

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

Reformat of Template:Star Trek regulars?

Hi, All!

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

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

Bakula and Trinneer Images

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

Missing Images

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

Voyager cast picture

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

Proposed move of Deep Space Nine article

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

  • Agree as long as we can place a dablink atop the new page for anyone looking for the article on the space station. Ejfetters 05:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Star Fleet Battles and related articles

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

Sinister plot to stigmatize Trek character articles

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

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

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

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

This episode marks the first introduction of Worf to internal Klingon politics, a story arc that would continue throughout ST:TNG and DS9. Durass and his family would go on to become recurring villains, and many of the characters introduced in this episode would appear later Klingon-centered stories.
As you can see, I actually think that more information needs to be added to the articles—putting the character in the context of a story requires more prose than simply listing facts. Having an "out-of-universe perspective" isn't simply about "information about how the actor was cast into the role and how critics and viewers responded to the character". It's a whole different attitude towards the article, a whole different way of describing information. The thing is, an article on Worf should be talking about Star Trek as a story, and the role played in the story by the character Worf. This is different from the approach at Memory Alpha, which is desgined to provide information from an in-universe perspective.
A few weeks ago, I rewrote the article on Jadzia Dax from an out-of-universe perspective so that I could remove the warning tag. Take a look at the article for further examples of what I think needs to be done. It's possible that the other editors who slap these tags on articles are anti-Star Trek, but I really think Wikipedia needs good Star Trek articles, and right now it seems to me like perspective is the main problem.
Hope this helps. Jim 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It helps, but it might not satisfy the "mysterious anti-Star-Trek "they"". With the Kira Nerys article, I tried to put exactly one of the things they asked for (casting info) but it wasn't good enough for "them." The in-universe tag got slapped right back on. I could take a whole day and try to satisfy them but it's just not good enough for them. With the Dax article, there still isn't casting info nor critical reaction nor fan reaction info. Even if we put that in, it's still not good enough, they will think of some other reason to put a shrill "don't rely on this article" warning tag. Contrary to the stereotype, I have a day job, a night class, a girlfriend and hobbies besides Star Trek. I'm not gonna call in sick, skip class, cancel a date just so I can spend time trying to appease them.
I don't have to do this, but if I don't feel encouraged to try to do this, no one else will. The taggers? Ha! They have impossibly high standards but no time to do anything towards meeting them. Wikipedians who care more about classical music or Family Guy? They'd like to but they won't. Stereotypically superhardcore Trekkies? They can't. Who does that leave? No one. The articles will stand with those tags for months, discouraging readers from reading them and discouraging editors from improving them. ShutterBugTrekker 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

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

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

Star Trek Customizable Card Game

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

Porthos nominated for deletion

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

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 26 Sept 2007 - expires 1 Oct
    • Alliance (Star Fleet Universe) PROD nominator states: These non-notable fictional characters from a role playing game are the basis for a synthesis of plot summaries and original research which has no analysis, discussion of context or secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC). - Fayenatic (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

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

EW Article

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society and Star Trek

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

Society and Star Trek at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society and Star Trek (2007-09-28 –)

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

Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents section notification:

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

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

GA Nominee: Star Trek

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

Talk page templates

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

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

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

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

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

I, Robot references

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

Non-canon content

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

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

Project logo

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

Games in Star Trek

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

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

AfD nomination of Star Fleet Battle Force

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

Image rationales.

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

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

The Search (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

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

Proposed deletions, Nov 2007

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion: Kahless

Kahless (via WP:PROD)

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

Articles for deletion: Enterprise characters etc

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

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

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

Sexuality in Star Trek

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

Character Article Mergers

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

Flood of AFD underway

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

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

Specific nominations

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

Proposed deletions, Dec 2007

• Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) updated • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) updated Fayenatic (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) update • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Starfleet General Orders (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-30) Prod removed - taken to AfD
• Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
updated • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
updated Fayenatic (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
unsigned by Judgesurreal777 - 30 December 2007 • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your aims?

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

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

Links to Memory Alpha

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

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

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

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

These Are the Voyages ...

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

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

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

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

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

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

AfD for Shadows of P'Jem

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

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

Character pages, WP:WAF and remedy proposal

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

Trellium-D

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

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

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

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

Removal of images from lists

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

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

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

purpose?

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:ENT Navigation (Season 1)

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

Character lists

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

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

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

X class or X-class starship

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

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

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