Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number One (early 2006) Number Two (late 2006) Number Three (early 2007) Number Four (2007-early 2008)

Contents

[edit] Possible Dune Reference?

This may be irrelevant, and I am terribly sorry if it is, but does anyone else wonder if the "Hakonnian Order" to which the Talaxians surrendered in Voyager may have been inspired by the Harkonnen in Dune? I seem to notice a lot of parallels in the Star Trek and Star Wars universes to Frank Herbert's works. Sue me if I'm crazy, but it seems to warrant further research. I'm on it. Anyone care to join me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.147.151 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's some kind of allusion, although I could just as easily imagine the producers around stating "Harkonnen Order," rather than a slight re-wording, if that's the kind of homage they were going for. ST has previously had, among other things, the "Corellian plague" that the crew in some episode was trying to knock out. --EEMIV (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Alpha character links

Worth noting, not all the links to Memory Alpha articles in the lists of characters work, they have different article names to those chosen here. Perhaps we might browse through and see about fixing these Alastairward (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, new to the project here, I'd be happy to help out sometime later today if you could throw some links to the lists my way. --Umrguy42 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems to be the odd one like B-4. For wikipedia, the article was called B-4 (Star Trek). The code in the tables looks for that article in Memory Alpha, but their article is just called "B-4". I changed that entry now that the B-4 entry has been added to the tables, but I think there are some more like it in there. Alastairward (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck up for AFD

An article on the Star Wreck parody novels is currently up for AFD here. It's the old argument that some feel a work of literature has to be on the same level of Moby Dick or be featured on Larry King Live to be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. Right now things are going in favor of keeping, however an editor is trying to rebut some of the arguments for keeping. Do people actually lose sleep over the fact some topics are being covered here? 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Kirk templating issues?

Hiya. Just did a substantial rewrite of the James T. Kirk article (removing in-universe crud and whatnot), and after I saved, I discovered that the new section title I had inserted does not appear in the copy. Can someone explain if that is a templating issue or whatnot? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space:1999/Star Trek Question

Someone possibly from this project has tagged the The Moonbase Alpha Technical Manual from Space:1999 as part of Wikiproject Star Trek. Any reason why? The only link I can think of is that Starlog also printed a Star Trek Technical Manual. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the article to the most appropriate Wikiproject that I could find. ArcAngel (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't want to remove it in case there was a link somehow. Douglasnicol (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: First Contact

If anyone is interested, Star Trek: First Contact is now a good article. Gran2 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Next Gen images being deleted

Some of you may be aware of the growing and nearly out of control deletion attempts by users supposedly enforcing the Wikipedia policty on notability. In fact, many are abusing it to get their way. Most trek articles have been through the notability wringer already and many were canned, so far the episode articles have survived. Now, however, in another wave of deletionism, the "notability policy" has been the latest weapon of choice, and this person, Fasach Nua, is trying to delete scene images from the Star Trek episode articles, starting with first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, saying they violate Rule #8 under the fair use policy which deals with notability. They are specific scene clips from each episode the articles are about and are therefore notable to that article. An image from the episode is allowed under the fair use rules as long as proper fair use tags have been given - in which case they have been. Each article can have ONE image.

So I ask that if you appreciate the integrity of episode articles, to please defend in keeping a notable scene clip with each of them, (because God forbid, we have anything else but stark black and white text to look at when we read the article). If these deletionists win their crusade, this place will soon be devoid of anything pop-culture. Televison shows, music, movies, comic books and video games will all be ousted, and you'll have nothing but articles on math, science and dead people who no one really cares about. Please voice an opinion under the trek images currently proposed for deletion such as ST-TNG_The_Neutral_Zone.jpg where I voiced my concerns. Cyberia23 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to sound that I'm derailing the discussion, I've noticed this a lot, I contributed a lot to the Space:1999 articles and there was mass deletion attempts. For example, this article Dragons Domain was deleted as non-notable despite in my opinion, being fairly well written. It seems there is far too many deletionists, and a lot of time it seems to be driven by people who don't like a particular show, at least that's how I see it. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it continues on and on. What I'm really sick of (and unfortunately it's the very nature of Wikipedia itself) is that anyone can edit - both a boon and a bane. Not only do you have to deal with endless vandalism, it really ticks me off when one person, out of nowhere, can come up to an article and slaps down a bunch of tags, and/or simply edits the article their way and delete things they don't agree with - without the consensus of anyone who has contributed to the article. Just delete delete delete, don't bother WORKING TOGETHER to come to a compromise. They have to have it there way, and fight tooth and nail to get it. And as a contributor, you simply can't undo their changes, remove their tags or flip flop everything with reverts because it violates policy. Instead, you have to go through the whole long-winded procedure of getting consensus and votes of others to back your arguments up and all that BS just to make them stop - IF THEY STOP – There are always other underhanded ways of twisting this place to their whim. They're like a virus - it's easy for a virus to infect you, you have to work the hardest part in getting the cure. Once cured, the virus just mutates and infects you again, then you have another long tiresome drawn-out procedure of becoming cured again. The people against seem to have the easy job - those for have to climb a damn mountain. And even if you get votes on your side, REMEMBER, WIkipedia is not a democracy. Some facist admin can just overrule the majority and side with the enemy and not have to justify any reason for it. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is as well, some people have differing standards, especially when it comes to citing sources, notability or article quality. One guy marked a bunch of my Space:1999 articles as not sourced, yet when I contacted him asking why, and what standards he needed, I never got an answer. Wonderful. Regarding episodes, if the article is well enough written, giving a good summary of the story, special features like particular notable model or effects work, as well as guest stars among others, I don't see why episodes don't have their own articles. Douglasnicol (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Independent, reliable, secondary sources usually do the trick. If an episode article can only recite the plot, it shouldn't exist. --Phirazo 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to rain on your inclusionist parade, but does each episode article really need a picture? How does Image:STCodeHonor.jpg improve Code of Honor (Star Trek: The Next Generation)? I would say an article should have a picture if it makes a reader understand the subject better, not to make the article "prettier". Prettiness should never get in the way of keeping Wikipedia free. --Phirazo 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't approve of the completely sterile look and articles, as policy stands right now, articles are allowed to have a picture, so that is why I gave them one. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Article's are permitted to use as many images as required, provided they meet WP:NFC, from Wikipedia:Nfc#Policy_2 criteria #3a states "...one is used only if necessary", and #8 "Non-free content is used only if ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding". TO include images to avoid a sterile environment is not acceptable, wikipedia has a clear objective, and the inclusion of these images is damaging to it.
Cyberia23 stated "...as policy stands right now, articles are allowed to have a picture...", I have never seen such a policy, if Cyberia23 could provide a reference to that poliocy page, that would helpful. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is there isn't a rule that says: "articles can't have pictures" and I don't see how theya re damaging anything. It's deletionists like you that are damaging this place. Cyberia23 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course they can have pictures most articles do, you can even in exceptional circumstances have non-free pictures! However the goal of wp is to create a free encylopedia, and by needlessly infecting articles with non-free content is pushing that goal further away, and harming the project. If you are interested in wholesale copyright abuse Memory Alpha is out there, but it has very different objectives to this site Fasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is something I'd like to ask. I did this in my Space:1999 articles with rationales, but would screen grabs from DVD's with properly written rationales be ok? Douglasnicol (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is well off topic, but the main issue criteria for using copyrighted image is that "...one is used only if necessary", and "Non-free content is used only if ... omission would be detrimental to that understanding", the rationale should demonstrate how you meet this criteria. The first port of call should be This page. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No offence, but I don't see how its well off-topic. The dispute seems to be regarding images, I was wondering if screen grabs from DVD's are ok. I don't own Star Trek DVD's but if it was fine and met the requirements on that page I was wondering if it was okay. Douglasnicol (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Screen captures from DVDs are no different from other copyrighted materials, and must meet the requirement for inclusion. I was looking at a few space:1999 articles, and I would imagine most of the images would have to go, if you look at criteria 3, one image should serve multiple purposes if possible, e.g. There are seperate photos of crews and uniforms, yet one photogarph both illustrate crew and uniforms! When I said it was off-topic, I wansnt intentionally being rude, I meant that there are forums dedicated to issues of copyrighted materials, where you would get a range of opinions, and experiences. This forum is meant for wikiproject ST, which is why I am discussing ST images here. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The BS I see is calling harmless inclusion of a screenshot as "damaging Wikipedia". These episode articles have been on here for a long time now and I've seen attempt after attempt at ridding this place of them and other TV show epsiodes, saying their "uncyclopedic", they're "non-notable", it's "niche fanboy crap no one else cares about", and - well since they're all still here! Everytime someone higher up apparently overrules their deletion requests and allows them to stay. Therefore these continued attacks on them are getting old. Seems like now, if you can't kill the articles outright - destroy them in small doses. They started with eliminating trivia sections, then trying to cut the plot sections out and limit them to only a few sentences, now lets go for the images, one by one. Its just the latest attempt to rid the site of episode articles and I'm getting really sick of it.

You say, "oh their's Memory Alpha" - yeah whatever they suck in more ways than you know - Wikipedia was first, and there is far better written stuff here than that place. More people come here. And dare you revert someone there as causes a shitstorm you wouldn't believe. I know, I tried once to be part of that community and left. They're episodes are all broken down in a scene by scene outline separated like Acts in a play. It's like reading the damn script - I thought a more storyline approach would be better but OH NO!!!

Anyway, I think I've been here long enough to know when images are being abused, - go look at the X-Files episodes and see what I mean or hell, look at half the entry on Marvel super heroes or the the individual Transformer toys. If you think the Trek Eps are bad, there are far worse image abuse issues here than that. Were talking 5 - 10 pictures (all copyrighted and tagged fairuse) per page. So good luck in your clean-up effort - you've obly begun scratch the surface. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit there is an active campaign against non-free images that has been going on for some time. Non-free images were removed from every "List of X episodes" last May (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use). I've seen people argue that Wikipedia shouldn't have any non-free images at all, which is ridiculous. Articles on fiction are the hardest hit simply because most articles on fiction focus on recent, copyrighted fiction (i.e. hundreds of articles about Star Wars, and only one for most "classic" fiction). The best way to keep everyone happy is to use non-free images in a way that illustrate the subject in a way words cannot. You don't help your cause by saying articles with only text are boring, since making an article pretty isn't a good reason to include non-free images. --Phirazo 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not denying that many uses of non-free images here on Wikipedia are excessive. There is a point when it becomes too much and I agree to some deleting. The trek article images in fact, like the X-Files images, used to be all shown in the episode list, and they too were removed. I feel though, if an image is used in good taste to help spice up an article I'm all for it. I think maybe some of the trek article images (even those I've uploaded) are probably not the best examples of images that could be used for a certain episode. Case in point, the image of Tasha Yar you brought up for "Code of Honor" isn't the best image for that episode. Another scene, perhaps the one with Yar fighting Yareena in the battle to the death would be better, unfortunately, that was the best image at the time that I could find from that episode. In any case, I don't think use of episode images damage Wikipedia as Fasach Nua suggests. There is always room for improvement though. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that image uploading can be abused. Myself, I try to limit it in articles I use to one, perhaps two, and even then try to use the image in more than one page. I have seen pages where they are saturated with images, apparently things like Pokemon were notorious at one point. Images sometimes illustrating for instance, spacecraft or vehicles can be more justified as trying to picture them if a reader is unaware of what they look like can be difficult. It's true that even among Non-Trek fans there can't be many people who know what the USS Enterprise looks like, but less known stuff. A balance does need to be struck. Betacommand's bot has filtered out a lot of crap, especially on those images where there is no proper copyright notice or rationale. One Wiki article I was looking at had had four or five images removed yet there were still two left, I think you can agree six or seven images in one article can be excessive Douglasnicol (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the images were deleted. Deletionists won. Expect more of the same. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Images will keep getting deleted as long as people act on the misunderstanding that you can have one image per page as a matter of course. You can't. You guys are approaching this question from entirely the wrong angle. People seem to think: "Okay, I have this new episode article, they all have an image, so now let's see which image I'm gonna use this time". Wrong. As long as you work like that, you'll never get valid fair use. What you need to say is: "Okay, this episode article contains a discussion of this particular special effect that was commented on in so many reviews. I really can't discuss this special effect without showing it." Or: "this episode article contains the appearance of this particular new race of extraterrestrials, whose weird appearance was commented on as something really special in the news. I can't really give the reader an idea of what they looked like without showing them." If (if!) an episode article contains something like that, then you can use an image. Only then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class/Importance labels for project talk pages

Greetings! Is there any interest to refactor the project template that is used on the talk pages so that it uses the {{WPBannerMeta}} format? This allows for the project pages to have the usual class (like "stub", "start", "list", etc.) and importance labels (like "High", "Top", etc.) assigned to them, so that statistics can be (automatically) collected and shown about the status of the project. If there is some interest, either reply here or drop me a line on my talk page and I can work on this for you. I may not be able to get to it right away, but am happy to do so when I have the time. Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can do it, or get someone to do it, that would be great :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. See Category:Star Trek articles by quality and Category:Star Trek articles by importance (and the appropriate subcategories). You can now edit the talk page project tags to update quality/importance ratings for the pages. The best way to see how to do this is to look at the examples that have been assessed already (such as can be found on Talk:Star Trek, look for the {{StarTrekproject}} template on that page). I will return in a week or so to add in the appropriate links to display the project page statistics when they are computed for the first time. Then they will be updated automatically periodically (usually once or twice a week). --Craw-daddy | T | 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcan (Star Trek planet) AfD

Up for deletion--do the folks dedicated to all things Star Trek on Wikipedia have an opinion about the importance and/or usefulness and/or encyclopedic value of this article?[1] --Blechnic (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Surprisingly the article actually didn't have a Star Trek Wikiproject banner on it, either. I've added it. BTW, Temporal Cold War is on the AFD chopping block, too. 23skidoo (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dilithium (Star Trek) another AfD

It seems it is delete Star Trek week. This one doesn't stand much of a chance of being deleted, compared to some of the others. --Blechnic (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on fictional characters proto-guideline

Figured I'd bring this to the attention of this project, since I think it's something that affects everyone here, the setting of a baseline of notability for fictional characters: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Feel free to comment. Ford MF (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Challenge to Episode Guide Notability

Just as an FYI, Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner? (an episode from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series) has a tag up challenging its notability. When I checked to see the rationale, they basically took the position that episode guides in general are inappropriate. So presumably if they can get this one deleted then they will attempt to delete more episodes of more shows. I'm not in any science fiction wikiprojects atm but I thought that this was something that people should be aware of. Wellspring (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)