![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)
Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin
"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003
"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.
-- Jordan
Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:
Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen
Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum
I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to give a dissenting opinion here, at risk of my life. :-) Don't get me wrong: I think M-A is *really* cool. But my reading of it is that what it is is it's the Wikipedia for *people who live inside the Star Trek universe*. It's not cast as fictional, at least, not on the pages I've seen. Therefore, it's material that's not strictly appropriate for direct inclusion in WP, in the form in which it exists.
My suggestion would be to create a cross-link template that picks up the current page name, and provides an explained, boxed, pointer to the appropriate (usually similarly named) page on M-A. -- Baylink 03:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."
JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."
Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),
just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".
I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.
"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?
Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?
I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".
-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I have noticed that at the bottom of the main page there are many sections all contcining links. I don't know about you but when editing this site I noticed the 32kb notice, so I thought it might be an idea to move the links to a new page and just position a small list of 'good' links on the main page.
Rumors of Enterprise's cancellation seem inappropriate - this is not a television forum, and the information is going to be outdated in a matter of weeks. Best to wait those two weeks and comment then, I think. Snowspinner 06:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why are the pages for the various series under strange abbreviations and not under the right names: Star Trek VOY versus Star Trek Voyager. It would be easier to link to them under their right names. ---rmhermen
Also, what should be call the ships? I assume USS Enterprise-A (for example) not NCC-1701-A. Do we want U.S.S. or just USS?
Okay, I've decided, until somebody disagrees, that entries for ships will be /USS Shipname (or /USS Shipname-A or whatever.) One thing I've learned, it's best to have a standard before we've got twenty-thousand entries all pointing to different places for the same ship. -- General Wesc
Is Star Trek space opera, or science fiction/soft science fiction? I'm tempted to class it as space opera, but sometimes it does get a little bit philosophical about pseudo-scientific issues.
A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --
A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --
TNG Star Trek/Star Trek TNG now needs some new data, as I just deleted the overly-biassed description.
How do we link episodes? I'm thinking of doing a list of the episodes with the Borg that I know of for the Borg page.
I propose that we kill the / pages in the Star Trek articles in the same way as the / pages were removed in the Star Wars articles. The subpage functionality no longer works with the new wikipedia software so there is no real reason why the / pages should still extist. How many other instances of the terms Klingon, James T. Kirk or tribbles are likely to crop up in any context or mean anything other than they do in relation to the Star Trek universe? If an ambigutity issue does crop-up we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Trek term X into X (Star Trek) if another term is nearly equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Trek term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Trek one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Trek term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Trek term. See Paris for an example of this type of disambiguation. Either way, we sould try to make linking to Star Trek terms as easy and natural as possible within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write [[Star Trek/Star Trek TNG|Star Trek: The Next Generation]] each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. In addition - contributions to the Star Wars articles seem to have significantly increased since I killed the / pages there (this probably has a lot to do with Attack of the Clones but easy linking within the articles couldn't possibly hurt the rate of contribs). If there are no loud protests, I will do this myself in a day or two. -- maveric149, Sunday, May 26, 2002
I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)
Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin
"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003
"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.
-- Jordan
Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:
Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen
Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum
I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."
JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."
Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),
just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".
I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.
"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?
Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?
I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".
-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
A recent update changed the wording of Deep Space 9's description from a "Federation outpost" to a "Bajoran outpost under Federation control". Even though that sounds right to me (though I'm not absolutely sure), it raises an interesting question. Why would a Bajoran outpost adopt the name "Deep Space 9"? The "Deep Space" nomenclature comes from Starfleet; i.e., the Federation. (Witness the occasional mention of other Deep Space # stations throughout ST:TNG and the other series and movies.) Wouldn't the Bajorans change its old Cardassian name of Terok Nor (sp?) to a Bajoran one? The station certainly isn't in "deep space" relative to Bajor! -- Jeff Q 10:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
These lists of characters should be in the articles for the respective series' and films. They remain here for reference. Characters common to many of the "regions" of characters, like Q, still belong in this article.
Original crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701
Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701
Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D
Regular crew and civilians of the Federation Station Deep Space Nine
Regular crew of the USS Voyager NCC-74656
Regular crew of Enterprise NX-01
Other Characters
In section Games, "subsection" Computer/video games, I would very much like to see the year of release and the producing company's name, for each game, instead of a list of producers on top. I have started doing this for a few games (listed the producers at least) but could do with some help. Also, in the future, we should perhaps list the games' platforms, so readers might get a picture of which computers/video game consoles have been 'supported by Star Trek' at various times. -- Wernher 21:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How can you seriously mean that Bajorans have anything to do with Israel or Jews? Their great pride is art and culture, and it's quite obvious that this planet (read country) is Greece. Greeks were also under occupation for a long time, treated badly....read: cardassians are probably Turks. :-)
"Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom. Some examples:
"
I removed the above because it looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions. If Earth had been intended to represent the USA then wouldn't it have been called 'USA' and Enterprise not given a multiracial crew? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The subject needs to be dealt with. Star Trek is famous for taking real-world ideological/political/ethinic groups and then thinly disguising them, and dealing with their issues in storylines. Sometimes 'Trek' didn't even disguise the allegory, and bluntly hit you over the head with it, as with "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" on race relations, and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" with its oh-so-subtle (NOT!) take on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not anyone agrees with the list's presence in the article - and I agree with Mendalus that it is vulnerable to POV - the overall fact that Trek has always used human and alien races to present perspectives on real-world issues needs to be addressed in an encyclopedic article about 'Trek.'
If the list is not the right way to do it, fine, then we need suggestions. A paragraph might cover it, though I think it might be possible to write a whole article about the subject. How do we tackle the subject here in a sensitive, NPOV manner? Kevyn 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"There is indeed plenty of material for discussion, and rec.arts.startrek.tech is exatly the place for it. An encyclopedia should deal with facts. I think we should restrict our parallels to cases where the authors intended there to be such a parallel.
It looks to me as though there are several categories of association here. First there are ones clearly intended to be parallels by the authors, into which seem to fall the Romulans/Rome, Suliban/Taliban. Some are a bit more generic - for example the Cardassians are clearly intended to be Imperialist agressors, but is there really any reason to think they represent one particular apressor rather than another. Finally there are cases where someone has clearly just though "Hey these guys remind me a bit of....". Vulcans=British clearly falls into that category. What we really need to do is distinguish between these (and preferably eliminate the last one, since it's wildly subjective). DJ Clayworth 15:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) DJ Clayworth 14:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO, this page should steer a wide berth around parrallels between ST races and actual human groups unless Gene and crew actually documented such a relationship. If we start introducing non-factual parrallels, the possibility for sterotypes to creep into text increases and also increases the edit war risk. See the Israel and Yasser Arafat page... Revmachine21 05:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added information regarding two new Trek Games being produced, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Tactical Assault.
User:HIDDEN 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Anon.
It is my understanding that the standard is not to use piped "year in x" links. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards corroborates this:
So this is why I deleted the "xxxx in film" links. - Branddobbe 08:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well:
Which says to me that non-piped links are acceptable in place of piped links, and I would call a listing of movies equivalent to a discography. My arguments are precisely the opposite as voiced there: the year article is only one click away from "xxxx in film" Cburnett 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with the year in music examples (and it is in fact done that way in the individual Star Trek movie articles, for example: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount Pictures, 1979; see also 1979 in film)), I could go either way in regards to the table in the Star Trek article; the rationale doesn't exactly apply to this. I'd tend to prefer to leave it as it was. Commander
Will Star Trek end and be a forgotten memory that is completely buried in history? - John-1107
But what we don't know is will there be any new Star Trek movies or shows instead of syndication? - John-1107
AlistairMcMillan just undid my edit. I think it should be discussed here.
The article stated that Trek is an optimistic view of the future. Alistair says in his edit notes "It is incredibly well documented that Star Trek presents an optimistic vision of the future. That is not POV."
Optimism is an opinion and by its nature takes a position that one condition is preferable to another. It is not neutral and therefore it biases the article.
Gene Roddenberry had an "incredibly well documented" history as a secular humanist. He believed that mankind is capable of solving all of its problems without intervention from a higher power. This is a major theme in Trek and is definitely POV. To say that Trek is a secular humanistic view is much more accurate.-- StAkAr Karnak 00:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If Gene was a "well documented "secular humanist" then would you mind listing a source or two here, because I seem to have failed to pick up on that fact.
I based my edit, mostly on memory and a little Google search:
I could go on, but you can check for yourself. AlistairMcMillan 05:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are right about the Gene == humanist thing. Funny I never picked up on that before. Anyway...
I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV thing. We are supposed to avoid adding our own POV. We can report other people's POV. For example you can't say in an article "Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far" but you can say "Dan Curry thinks Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far [4]".
The dispute here isn't whether "optimistic" or "secular humanist" are NPOV or not. The point is whether the series are identified as "optimistic" or "secular humanist" most often. AlistairMcMillan 05:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"man overcome their problems without help from higher sources" Is that all that Star Trek is about? Is that even a central theme in Star Trek? I don't think so.
The sentence you are trying to edit goes on to say "...humankind has overcome sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare on Earth; the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding." Nothing to do with religion. And unless you can find someone who thinks that that is a pessimistic or negative vision of the future, I think "optimistic" is the obvious word that fits here. AlistairMcMillan 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SUGGESTION: while it may be POV to characterise the series' as 'optimistic', it is *not* POV to report that the people involved in creating the series *said* that they intended an optimistic portrayal of the future. If they did say it that way, let's just source it, quote it, and move along?
--
Baylink 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AlistairMcMillan brings up something I was getting around to anyway when he says: "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding."
I object to this. Was the Federation helping spread peace by defying the Dominion's claim to sovereignty in the Gamma Quadrant?
Trek has a Human-centric (even a Western-centric) POV and very often promotes the idea that Humans have all the answers and everyone should be like them. The Ferengi turned democratic. Archer told the Andorians and the Tellarites that they should start acting Human. The Klingons eventually join the Federation. The Federation imposes its ideals on everyone they meet. That is the real "understanding" promoted. Michael Eddington was right. -- StAkAr Karnak 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who added the "helping to spread peace and understanding" bit to the article originally. I used those words because I can remember countless times in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (and even a few times in ENT) when Our Heroes resolved a conflict with diplomacy rather than phasers, and emphasized unity and cooperation instead of subterfuge and aggression. TNG in particular had more than its fair share of episodes where Picard mediated between warring races. In the Trek of more recent years, these issues have taken on more shades of grey, but I'd still say they're the rule more than the exception. Peace and understanding are imprecise terms, yes, but that's okay because Star Trek has represented these ideals in lots of ways. - Brian Kendig 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Having just watched the TNG episode
Silicon Avatar, here's a quote regarding the destruction of the crystalline entity:
Sounds like peace and understanding to me. Cburnett 08:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a question regarding Spock on Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek) for those who wish to contribute.-- StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think they deserve their own article. Star Trek fan productions perhaps? Cburnett 00:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the movies section should be broken down into short summaries just like what is done for the series. Objections/thoughts? Cburnett 18:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the big things missing from the article is a discussion of the optimism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that is the basis of ST. Since my arguing buddy, StAkAr Karnak, didn't pick up on my suggestion I think we need a Star Trek ideals or Star Trek culture with a short discussion in Star Trek.
Thoughts of topical inclusion?
Cburnett 03:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I previously wrote that there are 725 episodes in the franchise; a number we can now calculate because of ENT's cancellation. I neglected to count "Endgame" and "These Are the Voyages" as 2 episodes each, so that brings our total to 727.
For anyone that would like to check my math: TOS=80 (including "The Cage"), TAS=22, TNG=178, DS9=176, VOY=172, and ENT=99.-- StAkAr Karnak 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since there have been media reports and statements from Trek producers in recent weeks to the effect that a Trek XI film is in the early planning stages, with a script writer and general premise already decided, should a Star Trek XI article be started? It could follow the format of Casino Royale (2006 movie) which divides things into confirmed reports and unconfirmed media reports. Thoughts? 23skidoo 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A user took the Gorn article and turned it into a redirect to List of Star Trek races, deleting the content in the process. I can see it being done with smaller articles on obscure races referenced in the canon, but the Gorn is a pretty major part of Trek lore and the article was pretty detailed, so I reverted this change. There seems to be a number of articles being so deleted without going through the Votes for deletion protocol. If anyone has a races article they've created, or contributed to, you might want to check and see if it still exists, or if it has been made into a redirect. 23skidoo 01:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I merged the films into a single table because honestly theres really no room to expand on these given that they all have their own articles and any notable information for this page would be better suited in an expanded overview of the films. As they were, they were generic (same over and over - not really criticizing quality) in that they were listed only by name, the year, and the crew. If anyone disagrees, by all means revert it. One picture was removed from the section because it couldn't fit, the information on the film series, as stated, should be expanded so that this could be brought back. K1Bond007 20:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I know there's a separate page for ST fan-made series and items, but New Voyages bears the distinction of endorsement from Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. and so deserves a mention on this page as well. ElKabong
Are there any references, like books, documentaries, etc that can be included in the bottom of the page? I don't know any particularly "central" ones... maybe Gene Roddenberry's biography... (criteria for FA status anyway). Also, is there an article that describes the fan culture of Star Trek? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A featured article should:
What I think we need to work on:
-- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all we are pushing Wikipedia to its limits with this many entries. This is hard work and it is imperative we have to work together.
Cat chi? 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The objective here is to cover as much as we can within reason. A typical style of organization of the Wikipedia is that if it can not fit into a main article, it's branched off. The problem we have is that so much of the subject Star Trek has been broken off to so many articles, we've lost the ability to focus where the root branches are. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
We should be linking to the most important links... not something like TOS TrekMUS. Stuff like that should go under Trekkies. The problem is that we need to attempt to separate the canon stuff from the fan fiction stuff. I believe that we should attempt to focus on the official authorized stuff from Paramount. I think what I'm a bit disappointed in is the history behind the franchise which should be covered, in a summary or in length in this article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's a list of things I think should be covered somewhere:
From Star Trek Further Reading:
This stuff should be included INTO the article itself. Not as a list. We should attempt to write in the links. As it stands, I feel that the article would stand better with a rewrite. The reason I can't really start is that I don't really know all the Star Trek articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Starting a draft here. Star Trek/temp -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Some other key things to note about: Exploration of current culture, parallelism of current events, depiction against certain things such as racism. Part of the thing is when I read the Star Trek article is how much it seems we assume of the reader. Does the average person know who Rick Berman is? Not likely. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's some ideas for sentences:
From the article:
Um...I object to both the idea the NexGen was "light", to the suggestion that DS9's "generally darker theme" was a reason for NexGeners "not returning", and even to the idea that NexGeners didn't "return". I think that DS9 started to lose its "mass audience", but true NexGen fans would hardly have been "scared away" by DS9's themes. Anyone have thoughts here? func (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been googling a bit and can't seem to find an actual date as to when Star Trek first went into Syndication. The Wkipedia entry says that it went into syndication after its prime time run ended, but not a specific time. Did it go into syndication the next year? If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the main wikipedia entry when it mentions going into syndication.
So I was recently thinking...why does Wikipedia link to MA on almost every ST article (I'll admit I've added them myself) but MA doesn't have the courtesy to link back?
I don't really care that MA is ST-only, that's irrelevant. For one, List of Star Trek: TNG episodes beats the pants off of MA's list.
A little quid pro quo.
What is everyone's thought on having MA link to WP or else remove MA links from WP?
I'm not wanting to get all vindictive about it (IMDB doesn't link to WP) but MA people have been preying on WP for exposure:
and I'm sure plenty of stuff I don't know about. Cburnett 07:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favour of removing the links to MA, unless they link to WP. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how linkbacks are relevant to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should list another site in its "External Links" section if it meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:External links; whether or not that site links back to us has no bearing on the suitability of that site. However, I don't believe that memory Alpha satisfies any of the points in the "What should be linked to" section, and as such, I see no point to linking to Memory Alpha from anything other than the main Star Trek article here. - Brian Kendig 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
<idiot mode.
OMG OMG IMDB DON'T LINK BACK REMOVE ALL OF THEIR LINKS.
</idiot mode>
Anyone who beleives that Memory Alpha is trying to get trek related pages of wikipedia has had to much pot. Memory Alpha is a Star Trek Encylopedia. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia. Anything similar between these two? Good now that we got past that point lets go to the next.
Must Memory Alpha link back to Wikipedia?
No.
How many times have we linked to IMDB,BBC,CNN and god knows how many other and they still haven't linked back? None. Atleast Memory Alpha link back to us. Now shut your big trap and let them do what they do best. Write good Trek articles. I must say their quality is much better then this one.
I posted this question a long time ago at the article about Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I never got an answer over there so am reposting it here. I am very curious. - Husnock 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There appears to be a rather heavy bias towards images of the Enterprise on this article: 8 Enterprise images, 1 DS9 image. I would have expected at least some of: Kirk, Spock, Bones, Klingons, Picard. Anyway, just a suggestion :) Tim! ( talk) 16:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think it is necessary to say that Star Trek "along with Star Wars" is one of the most popular SF franchises. What about BSG? Doctor Who? Stargate? If we want to name-drop, there's no way to do justice to each fanbase. I think it is enough to say that Star Trek is one of the most popular SF franschises, and link SF franchises to a list of franchises elsewhere.-- StAkAr Karnak 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Most definitely. I had contemplated this over the past few days after seeing your post. I believe that just saying "one of the most popular SF franchises" says a great deal. The names you mentioned: Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who (most definitely), Stargate are influential to today's science fiction scene. I took the opportunity to look at the entry on
Star Wars and didn't find any mentioning of Star Trek, though I didn't really delve too deeply into the content. Still, I think the line should be removed or, at the very least, added to Star Wars' entry, too. -
DrachenFyre 23:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
added the line about 11 motion pictures beign made aswell. corrected the total number of episodes to 722 (it was listed as 725)
Number of episodes: TOS 80 (including the pilot) TAS 22 TNG 78 DS9 172 VOY 172 ENT 98
Films 11
someone should maybe add an entry at the bottom with listing of the films and links to pages
I have modified the table of films as I thought it was too long. I have made use of the horizontal space so that all ten films can be seen on one screen. I know it's not perfect, hopefully someone can tidy it up a bit to make it a bit nicer! Marky1981 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello all. I just noticed an anon user has been going around adding to every single Star Trek character page the term "at final apperance" or "at death" after each rank. To me, this is pointless. There is also a measure of original research, espically with listing ranks of Star Trek Enterprise characters that were only discussed as happening in th future but never actually seen. See this link for what I'm talking about. This will need major reversions to fix. Any suggestions? - Husnock 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
In whole I have enjoyed every aspect of Star Trek and want it continue and succeed in the next installment but hear me when I cry "Don't make a horrible Intro, like Enterprise ever ever again" It had to be the only thing that has made me not want to reguarly watch ENT.
Faith in the heart ppl
AJ
PS Bring back Wil Wheaton I liked his character and his [ [7]] website.
Hello to you all! Many of the ST articles I've perused (and edited thusly) recently contain both forms — i.e., Star Trek or Star Trek, italicised or not — to describe the 'ST universe'. As such, I believe this underlines a slightly significant issue – of (in)consistency or of (not) having a standard – regarding various Star Trek references on Wikipedia pages in general. As well, various Star Trek reference works (of varying canonicity) use Star Trek (italics) when referring to the universe or generally; this, however, is likely corporate self-promotion by Paramount.
We needn't do this in Wikipedia, though, given the audience of Wikipedia (web visitors and users) and inherent popularity of the term and franchise. As well, systemic italics may confuse users regarding the precise topic matter: for example, if Star Trek is used in a general capacity but is inferred to mean the original Star Trek series (in actuality, Star Trek was the proper name of the original series, et al.), etc.
So: consistent with similar posts (and similar discussions, e.g., here), I propose usage of Star Trek (plain) in Wikipedia for general references to the universe, franchise, or phenomenon, and the use of Star Trek /: The Original Series (italics) only when referring to the original series (and similarly, where it appears in a name of a movie, production, etc.). If this is acceptable, I encourage users to make such editions on related pages when they come across them. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Which Earth Navy(ies), were the TOS rank insignias (wrist stripes) based on? Mightberight/wrong 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)- PS: I meant no disrespect to Wiki Policy , the previous Star Trek question was my own, I just wanted to edit it to a less cumbersome form.
That's O'k', no harm done, by the way, would you know the answer to my Rank Insignia question? Mightberight/wrong 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
Thank you for the help E Pluribus Anthony, live long and prosper. Mightberight/wrong 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Years | Series Name | Abbrev. | Episodes | Notes |
1966-1969 | Star Trek | TOS | 79 | excluding unaired pilot |
1973-1974 | Star Trek | TAS or TAA | 22 | animated |
1978 | Star Trek: Phase II | 0 | not produced | |
1987-1994 | Star Trek: The Next Generation | TNG | 178 | |
1993-1999 | Star Trek: Deep Space Nine | DS9 | 176 | |
1995-2001 | Star Trek: Voyager | VOY or VGR | 172 | |
2001-2005 | Star Trek: Enterprise | ENT | 98 | |
725 | TOTAL |
Why doesn't this table count "The Cage"? It is most definitely a Star Trek episode, and I don't see how anyone could question its canonicity. This brings the count to 726.-- StAkAr Karnak 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Year | Movie Title | Director |
1979 | Star Trek: The Motion Picture | Robert Wise |
1982 | Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan | Nicholas Meyer |
1984 | Star Trek III: The Search for Spock | Leonard Nimoy |
1986 | Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home | Leonard Nimoy |
1989 | Star Trek V: The Final Frontier | William Shatner |
1991 | Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country | Nicholas Meyer |
1994 | Star Trek: Generations | David Carson |
1996 | Star Trek: First Contact | Jonathan Frakes |
1998 | Star Trek: Insurrection | Jonathan Frakes |
2002 | Star Trek: Nemesis | Stuart Baird |
The following text was originally posted in the Continuation of Enterprise subsection, but I suspect the user intended it for the Talk page. 23skidoo 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I am disappointed that Enterprise wasn't allowed to continue. Although debatable whether or not audience numbers had declined, the last 2 seasons saw a lot of changes behind the scenes and with the quality of the writing. I suspect UPN set up the series to fail. Had ratings expectations that no series could reach. The audience was also to blame. Many knew that this would be the last series so found hard to get involved with the stories. If the series went the whole 7 or longer seasons what would happen after that. UPN got what's coming to them for giving up on Enterprise so soon. The ratings and quality for the current crop of series with the exception of 1 has been pathetic. I am hoping very soon network execs will get their heads of their butts and realize it is better to have steady moderately high ratings with a loyal audience. They had that with all the series.-- Tjkphilosofe 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Yes my intention is for this to be open for discussion. Oops about where I originally put it.-- Tjkphilosofe 07:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
They did not have moderately high ratings, nor did they have an especially loyal audience, aside from a very core group of fans. But then, every single show always has a core group of fans. Here's the linky to the audiences Star Trek Ratings. I don't understand why I keep reading these claims about audience ratings that are demonstrably not true.-- Nephandus 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)I am in total agreement. You cannot believe the ratings that UPN released to show how well Enterprise did. I keep trying to point out that there was another reason for canceling the series other than poor ratings. However others quote UPN press release. These people who beieve those numbers probably also still believe that Santa actually exist. First thing to remember is that networks lie.-- Tjkphilosofe 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It says "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise. It has a tentative release date of 2007, and it's been rumoured that Nicholas Meyer(Director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) will be helming this new venture." but this is incorrect. He didn't direct The Voyage Home that was Leonard Nimoy. But, I cant seem to find the edit section to remove it. Its not under the sub-heading edit for "motion pictures" nor is that text contained in the main page.
A user has been changing the spelling of Jackson Roykirk (a character from the TOS episode The Changeling to "Jackson Roy Kirk". I've never encountered this spelling in all my years as a Trek fan, not to mention it makes no sense since it would suggest the guy was a relative of JT Kirk, which he clearly isn't. I thought I'd put the comment on the general Trek page so that someone can take a look at this. 23skidoo 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess no one's bothered looking at the startrek.com library, where it sais "Roykirk" rather than "Roy Kirk." ethernaut
There really is a planet named "Alderaan" in the Star Trek line of fictional work, which happens to be the name of the sharded planet on Star Wars. Now why did they put that there, and why would Lucasfilm permit this? Look up Alderaan on [ Alpha] (the Star Trek wiki) -- Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Seeing that Harry Kim is Korean in descent, that had me start thinking about what happened to the Koreas between now and then. Do North and South Korea reunify under the Communist or Capitalist government? Do they stay divided to the day a single world government takes place? As I'm also half-Korean, it makes me all the more curious. Reply to my User Talk page if you wish. -- Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
How the hell can such good series as Voyager and Enterprise get low rating? are all the trek fans old ppl who dont like computer special effects or what? i think u should shame. All of u who claim to like star trek and then give it low rating, a true trek liker never gives low rating. Star trek deserves the best and nothing else.
You know I agree I don't understand why Enterprise is claimed to have done poorly in the ratings and some have said that Voyager had slumping ratings towards the end. Although it is possible that these individuals are only quoting network and studio execs. I believe something else was afoot. Paramount did all they could to sabotage Enterprise.
At beginning Enterprise got off to the usual slow start like TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY but as the series went along improved. Voy did extreming well towards the end.-- Tjkphilosofe 10:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
They are quoting Nielsen ratings, which did confirm the executive’s viewpoints. Although, the Nielsen Ratings system is quite controversial, as only a small minority of people have Nielsen boxes, and so use of them is said not to be amazingly accurate by groups such as [8], of who have hoped to save enterprise from the beginning.
Although Enterprise did have vast improvements in its latter series, the increase in ratings was apparently not good enough for a show which costs millions to make per episode. It is easy to understand the decision from a business point of view.
Some of the stories basically became redone episodes of treks gone-by. The execs obviously thought a "rest" would bring about a creative revival in the future.....perhaps along Dr Who's lines. (Allowing them to make big money from Trek once more)
I say all this despite being a fan. The low ratings are not a surprise.....it was difficult for people to come and watch Enterprise mid season and pick up the storyline...just look at the Xindi arc to tell you that. Agent Blightsoot 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely correct about neilsen ratings. It is a dinosaur. Because of my schedule I record everything and watch later. With dvrs and tivo networks never be able to get an accurate number for who is watching anything.-- Tjkphilosofe 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There was no increase in ratings. You can look at the data yourself here Star Trek Ratings.
There is no indication that Nielsen's ratings system works any differently for Voyager than it did for other more successful programs. If it was innacurate, this would be revealed as widely fluctuating ratings rather than the steady downward trend that is consistent with the drops in the other series. As for the claim that only a small percentage of viewers have Nielsen People Meters, that's only relevant if a disporportionate amount of viewers don't have them. As it turns out, the same People Meter data were replicated by a seperate sample and methodology (the diaries) in the US. In Canada, with yet another sample in a seperate country (with similar viewing habits), the data were again confirmed. Also in Canada, Nielsen's competitor - BBM Canada - also had similar numbers with its own two seperate samples and methodologies. So in total, we have a confirmed trend in two countries, across 5 samples and 4 different methodologies (US and Canada Mark 2 meters, US diaries, PM meter, US diary, BBM diary)
Nielsen does include time-shifting, as well as VCR taping. You can contact them yourself to confirm at nielsenmedia.com or nielsenmedia.ca. Also, the Tivo top 20 (created with Nielsen) available from their site, did not list Voyager or Enterprise as one of the top time-shifted programs anyway - which would be important in establishing whether or not a disporportionate amount of PVR users recorded it.
As for Bakula's claim, I was able to make the same projection of a season 3 or 4 crash by projecting the continued rate of audience bleed found in Voyager throughout Enterprise's run. Once it hit dropped below 2%, it was likely to be cancelled, and it was. No mystery, no conspiracy. It's about that simple.
I understand there are some superfans here. Let's not clutter the discussion with easily disproven conspiracy theories and libelous claims about Nielsen Media Research. -- Nephandus 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In the Motion Pictures section there's a bit of discussion about the "odd film rule" and someone wrote that Trek 7 (Generations) is an exception as it's a "firm fan favorite". I'm not sure if that's correct. My understanding is that the film has never been regarded very highly - in part because of Kirk's fate. While it doesn't seem to be hated as much as Nemesis, I don't agree that it can be called a "firm fan favorite". But before I delete that sentence I wanted to gauge thoughts on this. Maybe I'm wrong? 23skidoo 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As a Trek fan, there's one thing that's always caused my eyebrow to rise (like Spock's). By Star Trek VI, the Enterprise-A had, 3 Captains & 3 Commanders, Starfleet could have instantly lost 6 fine officers in one catastrophy. Should this be mentioned in the article? What do you think, fellow Trek fans. GoodDay 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This page is already way too long, but has anyone mentioned the even numbers theory or the number 47 theory? If so feel free to delete this entry. Basically the even numbers theory suggests that even numbered Star Trek films are good 2, 4, 6, 8 being the best examples while odd numbered ones are bad 1,3,5,7,9 all not being up to snuff...The number 47, according to the 47 Society web page (which I hasten to add is a spoof), is apparently used whenever possible in NG, Voyager and DS9 as a kind of in joke about the power of an apparently random number. Again feel free to delete if this has already come up...AGM
Didn't Data use the 47 theory thingy to make his blinking realistic? SaintDante 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there an article on Paramount's Star Trek canon policy? If not, I'll create one. The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have a section covering the great cultural impact the series has had? I would have thought that, it being a former featured article, would have already had that well covered. I know there are several spin-off articles on Wikipedia that cover the cultural impact of Star Trek, but shouldn't this main one have a section devoted to it? The Wookieepedian 07:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
After looking over both the sections on the TV series, and on the films, I found what I consider to be yet another major fault in this article: it lacks explanation of plot. IMHO, each section devoted to a TV series, for example, should give a brief synopsis of the show (what happens in it, who the major players are, etc). Everything else included is OK, but it looks to me as if these sections, at times, are merely collections of trivia about the shows or films, and not organized or written in a specific format. And all the section on the films seems to do, is basically explain how fans perceive the films, rather than explaining what the films are about over all, and giving general and fan reactions.
Now, E Pluribus Anthony and I have properly expanded the section on Canonicity and other stories. That's taken care of. Yet there is still not a section explaining the cultural impact and general reception the Star Trek franchise has had. Someone needs to work on that. I am still surprised, in a way, that this was featured when it was. In my opinion, it still needs a lot of work. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw on my watchlist that someone reverted this. It should not be in the article but I found the first part humerous.-- Gbleem 06:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Toronto Police see two kinds of pedophile: Star Trek and Star Wars.
" Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Where no man..." & "to explore...seek out" & were coined by John DF ( Associate Producer & Story Ed); "Space, the final frontier..." by Sam Peeples (title of the 2d pilot, for the non- Trekkers, which was Dx James Goldstone). "STTOS" won 2 Emmys. Shocked? They were for Production Design... The show, surprisingly, never got above #52 in the ratings; by Season 3, they were down by over half. It was the first 1hr color SF series in primetime for adults. It wrapped (with an episode broadcast 3 June 1969, to an 8.8 rating) on 9 Jan 1969, 1 day & US$6000 over... If only I could source it... Trekphiler 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac| (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What's with the Western science fiction category? Looks like someone put most if not all of the Star Treks in this category, but except for a couple of episodes (Spectre of the Gun, ENT's North Star) there really hasn't been much western-style SF in Trek. Yes I know it's inspired by Wagon Train, but Star Wars was inspired by Seven Samurai and you don't see it listed in the Japanese science fiction category. Unless someone can give a good rationale for keeping the Trek titles in the category, I may just go ahead and delete it. 23skidoo 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Trekkie and therefore didn't know in what year the original series was set. I don't believe this information is anywhere within the article. 23rd century? 24th? SyntaxPC 14:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that it's terribly important, but I've noticed that a great deal of Star Trek screenshots on Wikipedia are tagged {{ film-screenshot}} rather than {{ tv-screenshot}}. How should we rectify this? Should we rectify this? Also, should this conversation be taking place elsewhere? I like things nice and clean, ha. - Dwiki 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
the article makes no mention that NASA's prototype space shuttle was named "enterprise" after the petitioning of many trekkies...would it be apprpriate to mention this in the article, i think it certainly warrants a mention somewhere... BFS
I liked the article, I don't understand why some have dismissed it as "poop" - Star Trek is perhaps the most culturally significan TV programme in history as you say. Perhaps you should mention the various "treknology" that has come out of the series too. Stuff that's been "invented" through the series. Needless injections and so on.... keep up the good work! BFS
Gator1 'removed as not "related to the production and influence of the franchise."'
from the "References" section, the following:-
Any discussion about this??!! ~~JohnI~~
Just curious about claims that there were three years of development. Any show can go through tremendous periods of time in creation and network pitching ... but the series itself, in true pre-production, was actually a matter of months. So, is it possible to clarify this statement or remove it altogether? Syfymichael 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"... which, in turn, increased ratings and allowed the series to continue for four more seasons."
I am a television industry research professional with access to ratings information. I deleted this line because it was incorrect factually.
Each successive season of Star Trek Voyager received lower ratings, on average, than each previous season. It is possible that the ratings loss might have been more severe had they not made the switch, but such speculation and does not belong in this entry.
A citation?
23 Skidoo, you are the person who made the original, and incorrect, unsubstantiated claim that Voyager ratings increased with the addition of the Seven of Nine character. Why did you "restore" this unsubstantiated claim while asking me to cite mine?
[...]
Keep in mind that Entertainment Weekly is only a weekly magazine, and ratings fluctuations are quite normal from week to week for any program. When the industry is looking at the performance of a show, they average several episodes together - generally at least four while in mid-season. If you are judging performance year over year, then the appropriate measure is an entire season of episodes, compared with the previous one. In this case, if any entertainment magazine ran an article, they would most likely have done it to coincide with the premier of the character (which is when Paramount's PR department would be pushiing stories about the change). This means the article would hit early in the season - maybe even in the season premiere, after a cliffhanger, and in an episode featuring the more popular "Borg" villains. Chances are there was a brief ratings spike then for an episode or two - though not necessarily attributable to the new character, and it certainly was not sustained across the season.
I will look into the options, if any, of revealing the ratings here, however that runs into a slippery slope of publishing all ratings for every show on Wikipedia, and that's just not going to wash.
All I can give you is my best assurance that your twouncited claims are simply untrue:
1. The addition of Seven of Nine did not increase the ratings of that season over the previous season, nor did any subsequent season with Seven of Nine have higher ratings than any of the seasons that preceded the character's introduction.
2. Even if the ratings did indicate a sustained increase (which they did not), there is no evidence to suggest that Seven's appearance would have been the sole factor to cause ratings to rise (again, which they didn't).
Frankly, your uncited claim if ratings increasing season by season smacks of more of fanboy adoration than factual accuracy. I would kindly ask that you remove your claim until you can substantiate it. And to substantiate the claim, you will likely end up contacting me anyway.
Nephandus 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus
Still needs a cite either way, no matter who you are or work for. Gator (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The original claim was not cited, is POV, and is now disputed factually, and is also in conflict with the wiki article devoted specifically to Voyager, which indicates yearly ratings dropoff.
My proposed correction did NOT introduce a new uncited claim or disputed fact. Would not the proper edit be to remove the disputed fact until it is verified; NOT by restoring the disputed, unverified claim? What's worse, an alleged POV edit, made by someone who claims to be a media research professional (who, in fact, would be a primary source), or a verified, disputed, speculative POV entry?
I've also requested a citation that the addition of Seven was in response to a direct cancellation threat in Season 3, rather than a more general and ongoing attempt to increase ratings. Since it was unsuccessful in reversing the trend, and the show did indeed continue for another four seasons of successive dropoff, I find it unlikely that it was in any specific danger of cancellation in season 3.
Nephandus 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus
Both claims need to be cited which is why a citation needed tag was placed. This is simple. Find a cite (eitehr way) and put it in. If not, then the sentence, eventually, needs to go. There's nothing else to discuss. Gator (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's the cite that indicates the ratings for Voyager did not rise after the addition of Seven of Nine.
Star Trek Ratings compilation 23skidoo, the ratings compilation is from Cyrus on Trekbbs, with whom I'm sure you are familiar.
Nephandus
01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Nephandus
Just to set the record straight, I posted the information based upon at least 3 different magazine articles that I read on the subject: Entertainment Weekly, Starlog, and one other magazine that the title escapes me. I added the information back in my early days as an editor when I wasn't aware that such information needed to be cited. I resent the implication that I was lying. I don't make this crap up. The fact there is proof to the contrary is fine, but nonetheless the rumor has existed for a number of years and should be mentioned. 23skidoo 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The implication is that you were mistaken - not that you were lying. As I discussed above, ratings fluctuate within seasons. If your magazine articles were written early in the fall season (when more people watch TV), coming off a cliffhanger with the Borg, it's possible those single eps were higher rated than the rest of the season, and that the magazines you mentioned could have tried to attribute the "success" to the new character. It's not like they would go back and do another story immediately afterwards though when the ratings took a dive, since they don't keep these things on a barometer, and they likely don't want to annoy the Paramount PR department.
I do take issue with the idea of a "rumour" that the ratings increased though. I've certainly never heard it and I would have. If you feel it is of vital importance to connect the introduction of Seven to a ratings grab, it's likely undisputed that her appearance was intended to pander to a male audience (albeit it was unsuccessful in raising the ratings), since her overt sexual appearance was not otherwise a factor of her character except in a single episode, nor was it apparently noticed by the other characters even though her "attire" was entirely uncharacteristic of any other character on the show (uniformed or not). Or, you can simply link to the character's own entry, which discusses that very issue. -- Nephandus 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
205.188.117.5 keeps replacing the picture but won't, after asking him to twice, come here to discuss it before making the change, so I will do it for him. I for one, prefer the current picture to the rear view picture, but its more important that the user come here and propose the change so we can reach a consensus before unilaterally changing it without discussion.
What are people's preferences. I would ask 205.188.117.5 not to change it again until we've reached a decision. Thanks. Gator (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's great and all, but there was no discussion. There needs to be some now. Please no more reverting. Gator (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and why don't you register. Your changing IP address is hard to follow. Gator (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Here are the two pictures:
250px|The origional starship Enterprise
vs
The starship Enterprise as it appeared on Star Trek
Thoughts? Gator (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good argument for the TOS page, but the regular Star Trek page....where's the problem? It's not meant ot illustrte the TOS, just what the original Enterprise looked like. Gator (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we're being too technical here, but I guess I would agree that a shot from the actual original series would be preferable, but the picture of the ship's ass is not a good substitute as far as I'm concerned so I, reluctantly, support the current picture until a better one is offered. The ass shot picture is not better IMHO. Gator (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but the end of the Enterprise's warp nacelles changed from the pilots (where they look like vents) to the rest of the series (where the vents were replaced with spheres). Sometimes footage of the ship from the pilots was used in later episodes so occasionally the vents one would show up! Does anyone have images for both types? Marky1981 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Another reason why I don't the "ass shot" picture. (Glad you weren't offended). I can;t beleive that there aren't any better pics out there.... Gator (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. That was my entire point to the anon user, who hasn't bothered arguing for his picture, in the first place!
the third paragraph in the cultural impact - 1st sentence about classical mythology. could someone please justify the statement with some specifics? and the 2nd sentence to me is utter gibberish. also how do i do a tilde? - andrew roberts
Hello, Star Trek freaks, I got to spread da word, so come to http://Memory-Alpha.com// to edit, THANK YOU. Whopper 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If you check out www.imdb.com or any other site that tracks these things, you will discover that Star Trek:TNG exceeds the number of nominations and awards earned by Deep Space Nine -both for technical and non-technical, nominations and wins, individual episodes abd full series, and genre and non-genre awards. DS9 did not exceed TNG's critical acclaim - not even close. -- Nephandus 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Star Trek permitted in the muslim world? I just wrote this question in detail in the Ferengi section, but realized that section might be very seldom read, so I am re-stating the question here.
I recall that Ferengi had a strict dress code for women. Otherwise one might be tempted to take them off! What sexual depravity! . Other abrahamic religions promise the loving presence of God, but Islam promises worldly success like money and women, both in this life and the next. Muslims tend to regard Merchants as being the only decent job, which is why so many of them are merchants, partly because Mohammed himself is considered an ideal, and was first a merchant, but also, when necessary, a soldier. Traditionally they have had one single religious leader who took the role after Mohammed, I think it was the Caliph, but that part is not currently in use, although there are plenty of prominent people trying to take up that role. Ferengi also have, if I recall rightly, one religious leader. I could list a number of other possible similarities, so I went to this article and saw that Ferengi is an arab word for merchant. DanielDemaret 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, are does Star Trek have atheist undertones? SaintDante 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wow my question turned into a full out debate. Sweet. But my main thought of this came when the TNG crew visited a planet and they thought Picard was God. This didnt bother me much but Picard said that the race should have been rational enough to relize there isnt a God. Are that is how it seemed to me. SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But Thanks People usualy just ignore my questins SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to have a link to homosexual behaviour. There was no homosexual behaviour in the series and there was not any characters. There is no need to bring an agenda to something that did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.22.231 ( talk • contribs) 21:59 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You all have forced an agenda on the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.137.77 ( talk • contribs) 01:28 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if i could get a list on what the color of the shirts represent. like blue is worn by blah and rank blah and you get the idea. I would also like to compare different seasons and shows of this. I would be very grateful. SaintDante 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) TOS:
TNG and higher:
I got this information from memory and verified with
this link. —
File:Ottawa flag.png
nath
a
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I also have one more request. I would be grateful to get a list of planet classes and their meanings. I am sorry if I am annoying any one with these requests. SaintDante 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintDante ( talk • contribs) 20:52 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the first info box, it mentions Vulcans as a major planetary nation. It is not, it's part of the United Federation of Planets and should not be mentioned as a major planetary nation. -- Feelgood 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Star Trek/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
93 citations, 14 images. JJ98 ( Talk) 08:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
Last edited at 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)
Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin
"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003
"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.
-- Jordan
Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:
Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen
Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum
I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to give a dissenting opinion here, at risk of my life. :-) Don't get me wrong: I think M-A is *really* cool. But my reading of it is that what it is is it's the Wikipedia for *people who live inside the Star Trek universe*. It's not cast as fictional, at least, not on the pages I've seen. Therefore, it's material that's not strictly appropriate for direct inclusion in WP, in the form in which it exists.
My suggestion would be to create a cross-link template that picks up the current page name, and provides an explained, boxed, pointer to the appropriate (usually similarly named) page on M-A. -- Baylink 03:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."
JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."
Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),
just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".
I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.
"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?
Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?
I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".
-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I have noticed that at the bottom of the main page there are many sections all contcining links. I don't know about you but when editing this site I noticed the 32kb notice, so I thought it might be an idea to move the links to a new page and just position a small list of 'good' links on the main page.
Rumors of Enterprise's cancellation seem inappropriate - this is not a television forum, and the information is going to be outdated in a matter of weeks. Best to wait those two weeks and comment then, I think. Snowspinner 06:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why are the pages for the various series under strange abbreviations and not under the right names: Star Trek VOY versus Star Trek Voyager. It would be easier to link to them under their right names. ---rmhermen
Also, what should be call the ships? I assume USS Enterprise-A (for example) not NCC-1701-A. Do we want U.S.S. or just USS?
Okay, I've decided, until somebody disagrees, that entries for ships will be /USS Shipname (or /USS Shipname-A or whatever.) One thing I've learned, it's best to have a standard before we've got twenty-thousand entries all pointing to different places for the same ship. -- General Wesc
Is Star Trek space opera, or science fiction/soft science fiction? I'm tempted to class it as space opera, but sometimes it does get a little bit philosophical about pseudo-scientific issues.
A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --
A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --
TNG Star Trek/Star Trek TNG now needs some new data, as I just deleted the overly-biassed description.
How do we link episodes? I'm thinking of doing a list of the episodes with the Borg that I know of for the Borg page.
I propose that we kill the / pages in the Star Trek articles in the same way as the / pages were removed in the Star Wars articles. The subpage functionality no longer works with the new wikipedia software so there is no real reason why the / pages should still extist. How many other instances of the terms Klingon, James T. Kirk or tribbles are likely to crop up in any context or mean anything other than they do in relation to the Star Trek universe? If an ambigutity issue does crop-up we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Trek term X into X (Star Trek) if another term is nearly equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Trek term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Trek one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Trek term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Trek term. See Paris for an example of this type of disambiguation. Either way, we sould try to make linking to Star Trek terms as easy and natural as possible within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write [[Star Trek/Star Trek TNG|Star Trek: The Next Generation]] each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. In addition - contributions to the Star Wars articles seem to have significantly increased since I killed the / pages there (this probably has a lot to do with Attack of the Clones but easy linking within the articles couldn't possibly hurt the rate of contribs). If there are no loud protests, I will do this myself in a day or two. -- maveric149, Sunday, May 26, 2002
I've read that Roddenberry wrote lyrics for the TOS theme music. These were suppsedly atrocious, and never intended for use, rather they were a way of getting a share of the royalties. However I've never actually seen them, and I have my doubts as to whether the royalties ploy would work (since the lyrics aren't part of the performed work...)
Can anyone substatiate this, or is it just an urban myth? -- Tarquin
"...quite progressive and daring for the time, with the exception of the depiction of the Klingons as resembling Asians in their facial features." Is there any truth in this? I didn't think they look Asian-like. -- 203.109.254.51, 13 Feb 2003
"forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is "European-American" appropriate to describe Kirk? Shatner is Canadian, of course, and Kirk always struck me as a "very" American, with no real European ties.
-- Jordan
Someone added this to the USS Enterprise page:
Any truth to this? Or is it a joke? --rmhermen
Through Google News, I discovered Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki project... Any idea if there was some melt down in the Star Trek section, and that's why this person decided to start up their own wiki? There's great information in here, it's not too inane to go in Wikipedia, if we could lure them in. - user:zanimum
I'm one of MA's sysops. The project is not in any way related and/or affiliated with Wikipedia. It was my idea to start up a Star Trek wiki, because there wasn't one yet, and the majority of 'conventional' databases are usually quite limited in their scope and POV. Together with a fellow Trekker, we settled for the MediaWiki software. Of course, you're all invited to join in. Wikipedia experience might even prove to be helpful, as we're still in a somewhat early stage. And FYI, the URL is http://memoryalpha.st-minutiae.com -- Harry 17:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to start putting a link to the corresponding Memory Alpha page (in an "external links" section at the bottom of the page) on Star Trek-related pages in Wikipedia? That would help funnel those who really want to create Star Trek pages to somewhere truly appropriate. Given some of the concerns folks have had about fictional universes proliferating in Wikipedia, I think it'd be reasonable to help funnel some of the Trek-related enthusiasm to this fantastic new Wiki. Anybody else agree? - Seth Ilys 14:43, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG? I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Enemy was certainly the wrong word. Antagonist? Adversary? Sure, but not "Enemy."
JimD 06:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
This is indeed an excellent article and very worthy of its featuredness. I have one minor disagreement with it, which is the use of the word "franchise" to define it. "Franchise" is I think rather too mediaspeak for a generalist encyclopedia and might be baffling to those who just want to read the article but don't usually think about things in such terms. It would in my view be much better if the definition sentence explained really what it is without using jargon - it would be fine to then introduce "franchise" later on once it is becoming clear what happened in the history of its development. And remember TOS was not a franchise, so doesn't even fit into that definition - how many spinoffs and successors do you need to achieve franchise-hood? :) To most people (OK not maybe most wiki editors, SF fans, and Media Guardian readers [please substitute local equivalent here], but ordinary people) "franchise" means what it used to mean - burger bars or card shops or whatever! I'd be grateful if you could consider this point. Thanks. Nevilley 12:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I want to figure out what to call it, too. The dictionary doesn't list any meaning of "franchise" which fits the way it was used here. So, what is Star Trek? A "universe" consisting of several sequels and movies? I want to know what to call the larger collection which includes all the canon and non-canon material, but I have no idea what word to use. - Brian Kendig 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
"Star Trek is ... is, along with Star Wars, the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."
Well, which is it ? Is Star Trek "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century", or is it "the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century" ? Enough with the ambiguous waffling. I may just rewrite it unambiguously (but as far as I know, incorrectly),
just to get enraged Trekkers to (a) fix it and (b) document the numbers. -- DavidCary 16:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to contain a pile of objective facts. If this is subjective, we should say something like "Many people believe Star Trek is the second most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century".
I have no idea. But I have high hopes that some other Wikipedian does have a clue.
"a late 20th Century science fiction franchise" ? You make it sound as if this is a broad category of dozens of different franchises. Other than ST and SW and perhaps Babylon Five, I wonder what else fits in that category ?
Can we objectively say "The Star Trek television series was the most popular science fiction television series of the late 20th century" ?
I'm really just reacting to the ambiguity of "... is, along with ___, the most popular ...". It reminds me too much of meaningless phrases like "one of the only ..." and "...up to $10,000 or more.".
-- DavidCary 03:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
A recent update changed the wording of Deep Space 9's description from a "Federation outpost" to a "Bajoran outpost under Federation control". Even though that sounds right to me (though I'm not absolutely sure), it raises an interesting question. Why would a Bajoran outpost adopt the name "Deep Space 9"? The "Deep Space" nomenclature comes from Starfleet; i.e., the Federation. (Witness the occasional mention of other Deep Space # stations throughout ST:TNG and the other series and movies.) Wouldn't the Bajorans change its old Cardassian name of Terok Nor (sp?) to a Bajoran one? The station certainly isn't in "deep space" relative to Bajor! -- Jeff Q 10:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
These lists of characters should be in the articles for the respective series' and films. They remain here for reference. Characters common to many of the "regions" of characters, like Q, still belong in this article.
Original crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701
Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701
Regular crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D
Regular crew and civilians of the Federation Station Deep Space Nine
Regular crew of the USS Voyager NCC-74656
Regular crew of Enterprise NX-01
Other Characters
In section Games, "subsection" Computer/video games, I would very much like to see the year of release and the producing company's name, for each game, instead of a list of producers on top. I have started doing this for a few games (listed the producers at least) but could do with some help. Also, in the future, we should perhaps list the games' platforms, so readers might get a picture of which computers/video game consoles have been 'supported by Star Trek' at various times. -- Wernher 21:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How can you seriously mean that Bajorans have anything to do with Israel or Jews? Their great pride is art and culture, and it's quite obvious that this planet (read country) is Greece. Greeks were also under occupation for a long time, treated badly....read: cardassians are probably Turks. :-)
"Alien species and political powers in Star Trek often have iconic properties. In some cases these have been directly envisioned by writers, and in others perceived such by fandom. Some examples:
"
I removed the above because it looks suspiciously like offensive, racist crap based on nothing but someone's stupid perceptions. If Earth had been intended to represent the USA then wouldn't it have been called 'USA' and Enterprise not given a multiracial crew? DJ Clayworth 15:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The subject needs to be dealt with. Star Trek is famous for taking real-world ideological/political/ethinic groups and then thinly disguising them, and dealing with their issues in storylines. Sometimes 'Trek' didn't even disguise the allegory, and bluntly hit you over the head with it, as with "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" on race relations, and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" with its oh-so-subtle (NOT!) take on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether or not anyone agrees with the list's presence in the article - and I agree with Mendalus that it is vulnerable to POV - the overall fact that Trek has always used human and alien races to present perspectives on real-world issues needs to be addressed in an encyclopedic article about 'Trek.'
If the list is not the right way to do it, fine, then we need suggestions. A paragraph might cover it, though I think it might be possible to write a whole article about the subject. How do we tackle the subject here in a sensitive, NPOV manner? Kevyn 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"There is indeed plenty of material for discussion, and rec.arts.startrek.tech is exatly the place for it. An encyclopedia should deal with facts. I think we should restrict our parallels to cases where the authors intended there to be such a parallel.
It looks to me as though there are several categories of association here. First there are ones clearly intended to be parallels by the authors, into which seem to fall the Romulans/Rome, Suliban/Taliban. Some are a bit more generic - for example the Cardassians are clearly intended to be Imperialist agressors, but is there really any reason to think they represent one particular apressor rather than another. Finally there are cases where someone has clearly just though "Hey these guys remind me a bit of....". Vulcans=British clearly falls into that category. What we really need to do is distinguish between these (and preferably eliminate the last one, since it's wildly subjective). DJ Clayworth 15:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) DJ Clayworth 14:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO, this page should steer a wide berth around parrallels between ST races and actual human groups unless Gene and crew actually documented such a relationship. If we start introducing non-factual parrallels, the possibility for sterotypes to creep into text increases and also increases the edit war risk. See the Israel and Yasser Arafat page... Revmachine21 05:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added information regarding two new Trek Games being produced, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Tactical Assault.
User:HIDDEN 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Anon.
It is my understanding that the standard is not to use piped "year in x" links. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards corroborates this:
So this is why I deleted the "xxxx in film" links. - Branddobbe 08:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well:
Which says to me that non-piped links are acceptable in place of piped links, and I would call a listing of movies equivalent to a discography. My arguments are precisely the opposite as voiced there: the year article is only one click away from "xxxx in film" Cburnett 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with the year in music examples (and it is in fact done that way in the individual Star Trek movie articles, for example: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount Pictures, 1979; see also 1979 in film)), I could go either way in regards to the table in the Star Trek article; the rationale doesn't exactly apply to this. I'd tend to prefer to leave it as it was. Commander
Will Star Trek end and be a forgotten memory that is completely buried in history? - John-1107
But what we don't know is will there be any new Star Trek movies or shows instead of syndication? - John-1107
AlistairMcMillan just undid my edit. I think it should be discussed here.
The article stated that Trek is an optimistic view of the future. Alistair says in his edit notes "It is incredibly well documented that Star Trek presents an optimistic vision of the future. That is not POV."
Optimism is an opinion and by its nature takes a position that one condition is preferable to another. It is not neutral and therefore it biases the article.
Gene Roddenberry had an "incredibly well documented" history as a secular humanist. He believed that mankind is capable of solving all of its problems without intervention from a higher power. This is a major theme in Trek and is definitely POV. To say that Trek is a secular humanistic view is much more accurate.-- StAkAr Karnak 00:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If Gene was a "well documented "secular humanist" then would you mind listing a source or two here, because I seem to have failed to pick up on that fact.
I based my edit, mostly on memory and a little Google search:
I could go on, but you can check for yourself. AlistairMcMillan 05:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are right about the Gene == humanist thing. Funny I never picked up on that before. Anyway...
I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV thing. We are supposed to avoid adding our own POV. We can report other people's POV. For example you can't say in an article "Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far" but you can say "Dan Curry thinks Enterprise is the best Star Trek produced so far [4]".
The dispute here isn't whether "optimistic" or "secular humanist" are NPOV or not. The point is whether the series are identified as "optimistic" or "secular humanist" most often. AlistairMcMillan 05:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"man overcome their problems without help from higher sources" Is that all that Star Trek is about? Is that even a central theme in Star Trek? I don't think so.
The sentence you are trying to edit goes on to say "...humankind has overcome sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare on Earth; the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding." Nothing to do with religion. And unless you can find someone who thinks that that is a pessimistic or negative vision of the future, I think "optimistic" is the obvious word that fits here. AlistairMcMillan 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
SUGGESTION: while it may be POV to characterise the series' as 'optimistic', it is *not* POV to report that the people involved in creating the series *said* that they intended an optimistic portrayal of the future. If they did say it that way, let's just source it, quote it, and move along?
--
Baylink 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AlistairMcMillan brings up something I was getting around to anyway when he says: "the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to spread peace and understanding."
I object to this. Was the Federation helping spread peace by defying the Dominion's claim to sovereignty in the Gamma Quadrant?
Trek has a Human-centric (even a Western-centric) POV and very often promotes the idea that Humans have all the answers and everyone should be like them. The Ferengi turned democratic. Archer told the Andorians and the Tellarites that they should start acting Human. The Klingons eventually join the Federation. The Federation imposes its ideals on everyone they meet. That is the real "understanding" promoted. Michael Eddington was right. -- StAkAr Karnak 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who added the "helping to spread peace and understanding" bit to the article originally. I used those words because I can remember countless times in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (and even a few times in ENT) when Our Heroes resolved a conflict with diplomacy rather than phasers, and emphasized unity and cooperation instead of subterfuge and aggression. TNG in particular had more than its fair share of episodes where Picard mediated between warring races. In the Trek of more recent years, these issues have taken on more shades of grey, but I'd still say they're the rule more than the exception. Peace and understanding are imprecise terms, yes, but that's okay because Star Trek has represented these ideals in lots of ways. - Brian Kendig 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Having just watched the TNG episode
Silicon Avatar, here's a quote regarding the destruction of the crystalline entity:
Sounds like peace and understanding to me. Cburnett 08:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a question regarding Spock on Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek) for those who wish to contribute.-- StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think they deserve their own article. Star Trek fan productions perhaps? Cburnett 00:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the movies section should be broken down into short summaries just like what is done for the series. Objections/thoughts? Cburnett 18:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the big things missing from the article is a discussion of the optimism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that is the basis of ST. Since my arguing buddy, StAkAr Karnak, didn't pick up on my suggestion I think we need a Star Trek ideals or Star Trek culture with a short discussion in Star Trek.
Thoughts of topical inclusion?
Cburnett 03:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I previously wrote that there are 725 episodes in the franchise; a number we can now calculate because of ENT's cancellation. I neglected to count "Endgame" and "These Are the Voyages" as 2 episodes each, so that brings our total to 727.
For anyone that would like to check my math: TOS=80 (including "The Cage"), TAS=22, TNG=178, DS9=176, VOY=172, and ENT=99.-- StAkAr Karnak 20:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since there have been media reports and statements from Trek producers in recent weeks to the effect that a Trek XI film is in the early planning stages, with a script writer and general premise already decided, should a Star Trek XI article be started? It could follow the format of Casino Royale (2006 movie) which divides things into confirmed reports and unconfirmed media reports. Thoughts? 23skidoo 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A user took the Gorn article and turned it into a redirect to List of Star Trek races, deleting the content in the process. I can see it being done with smaller articles on obscure races referenced in the canon, but the Gorn is a pretty major part of Trek lore and the article was pretty detailed, so I reverted this change. There seems to be a number of articles being so deleted without going through the Votes for deletion protocol. If anyone has a races article they've created, or contributed to, you might want to check and see if it still exists, or if it has been made into a redirect. 23skidoo 01:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I merged the films into a single table because honestly theres really no room to expand on these given that they all have their own articles and any notable information for this page would be better suited in an expanded overview of the films. As they were, they were generic (same over and over - not really criticizing quality) in that they were listed only by name, the year, and the crew. If anyone disagrees, by all means revert it. One picture was removed from the section because it couldn't fit, the information on the film series, as stated, should be expanded so that this could be brought back. K1Bond007 20:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I know there's a separate page for ST fan-made series and items, but New Voyages bears the distinction of endorsement from Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. and so deserves a mention on this page as well. ElKabong
Are there any references, like books, documentaries, etc that can be included in the bottom of the page? I don't know any particularly "central" ones... maybe Gene Roddenberry's biography... (criteria for FA status anyway). Also, is there an article that describes the fan culture of Star Trek? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A featured article should:
What I think we need to work on:
-- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all we are pushing Wikipedia to its limits with this many entries. This is hard work and it is imperative we have to work together.
Cat chi? 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The objective here is to cover as much as we can within reason. A typical style of organization of the Wikipedia is that if it can not fit into a main article, it's branched off. The problem we have is that so much of the subject Star Trek has been broken off to so many articles, we've lost the ability to focus where the root branches are. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
We should be linking to the most important links... not something like TOS TrekMUS. Stuff like that should go under Trekkies. The problem is that we need to attempt to separate the canon stuff from the fan fiction stuff. I believe that we should attempt to focus on the official authorized stuff from Paramount. I think what I'm a bit disappointed in is the history behind the franchise which should be covered, in a summary or in length in this article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's a list of things I think should be covered somewhere:
From Star Trek Further Reading:
This stuff should be included INTO the article itself. Not as a list. We should attempt to write in the links. As it stands, I feel that the article would stand better with a rewrite. The reason I can't really start is that I don't really know all the Star Trek articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Starting a draft here. Star Trek/temp -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Some other key things to note about: Exploration of current culture, parallelism of current events, depiction against certain things such as racism. Part of the thing is when I read the Star Trek article is how much it seems we assume of the reader. Does the average person know who Rick Berman is? Not likely. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's some ideas for sentences:
From the article:
Um...I object to both the idea the NexGen was "light", to the suggestion that DS9's "generally darker theme" was a reason for NexGeners "not returning", and even to the idea that NexGeners didn't "return". I think that DS9 started to lose its "mass audience", but true NexGen fans would hardly have been "scared away" by DS9's themes. Anyone have thoughts here? func (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been googling a bit and can't seem to find an actual date as to when Star Trek first went into Syndication. The Wkipedia entry says that it went into syndication after its prime time run ended, but not a specific time. Did it go into syndication the next year? If someone knows, it would be a nice addition to the main wikipedia entry when it mentions going into syndication.
So I was recently thinking...why does Wikipedia link to MA on almost every ST article (I'll admit I've added them myself) but MA doesn't have the courtesy to link back?
I don't really care that MA is ST-only, that's irrelevant. For one, List of Star Trek: TNG episodes beats the pants off of MA's list.
A little quid pro quo.
What is everyone's thought on having MA link to WP or else remove MA links from WP?
I'm not wanting to get all vindictive about it (IMDB doesn't link to WP) but MA people have been preying on WP for exposure:
and I'm sure plenty of stuff I don't know about. Cburnett 07:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favour of removing the links to MA, unless they link to WP. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how linkbacks are relevant to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should list another site in its "External Links" section if it meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:External links; whether or not that site links back to us has no bearing on the suitability of that site. However, I don't believe that memory Alpha satisfies any of the points in the "What should be linked to" section, and as such, I see no point to linking to Memory Alpha from anything other than the main Star Trek article here. - Brian Kendig 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
<idiot mode.
OMG OMG IMDB DON'T LINK BACK REMOVE ALL OF THEIR LINKS.
</idiot mode>
Anyone who beleives that Memory Alpha is trying to get trek related pages of wikipedia has had to much pot. Memory Alpha is a Star Trek Encylopedia. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia. Anything similar between these two? Good now that we got past that point lets go to the next.
Must Memory Alpha link back to Wikipedia?
No.
How many times have we linked to IMDB,BBC,CNN and god knows how many other and they still haven't linked back? None. Atleast Memory Alpha link back to us. Now shut your big trap and let them do what they do best. Write good Trek articles. I must say their quality is much better then this one.
I posted this question a long time ago at the article about Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I never got an answer over there so am reposting it here. I am very curious. - Husnock 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There appears to be a rather heavy bias towards images of the Enterprise on this article: 8 Enterprise images, 1 DS9 image. I would have expected at least some of: Kirk, Spock, Bones, Klingons, Picard. Anyway, just a suggestion :) Tim! ( talk) 16:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think it is necessary to say that Star Trek "along with Star Wars" is one of the most popular SF franchises. What about BSG? Doctor Who? Stargate? If we want to name-drop, there's no way to do justice to each fanbase. I think it is enough to say that Star Trek is one of the most popular SF franschises, and link SF franchises to a list of franchises elsewhere.-- StAkAr Karnak 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Most definitely. I had contemplated this over the past few days after seeing your post. I believe that just saying "one of the most popular SF franchises" says a great deal. The names you mentioned: Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who (most definitely), Stargate are influential to today's science fiction scene. I took the opportunity to look at the entry on
Star Wars and didn't find any mentioning of Star Trek, though I didn't really delve too deeply into the content. Still, I think the line should be removed or, at the very least, added to Star Wars' entry, too. -
DrachenFyre 23:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
added the line about 11 motion pictures beign made aswell. corrected the total number of episodes to 722 (it was listed as 725)
Number of episodes: TOS 80 (including the pilot) TAS 22 TNG 78 DS9 172 VOY 172 ENT 98
Films 11
someone should maybe add an entry at the bottom with listing of the films and links to pages
I have modified the table of films as I thought it was too long. I have made use of the horizontal space so that all ten films can be seen on one screen. I know it's not perfect, hopefully someone can tidy it up a bit to make it a bit nicer! Marky1981 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello all. I just noticed an anon user has been going around adding to every single Star Trek character page the term "at final apperance" or "at death" after each rank. To me, this is pointless. There is also a measure of original research, espically with listing ranks of Star Trek Enterprise characters that were only discussed as happening in th future but never actually seen. See this link for what I'm talking about. This will need major reversions to fix. Any suggestions? - Husnock 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
In whole I have enjoyed every aspect of Star Trek and want it continue and succeed in the next installment but hear me when I cry "Don't make a horrible Intro, like Enterprise ever ever again" It had to be the only thing that has made me not want to reguarly watch ENT.
Faith in the heart ppl
AJ
PS Bring back Wil Wheaton I liked his character and his [ [7]] website.
Hello to you all! Many of the ST articles I've perused (and edited thusly) recently contain both forms — i.e., Star Trek or Star Trek, italicised or not — to describe the 'ST universe'. As such, I believe this underlines a slightly significant issue – of (in)consistency or of (not) having a standard – regarding various Star Trek references on Wikipedia pages in general. As well, various Star Trek reference works (of varying canonicity) use Star Trek (italics) when referring to the universe or generally; this, however, is likely corporate self-promotion by Paramount.
We needn't do this in Wikipedia, though, given the audience of Wikipedia (web visitors and users) and inherent popularity of the term and franchise. As well, systemic italics may confuse users regarding the precise topic matter: for example, if Star Trek is used in a general capacity but is inferred to mean the original Star Trek series (in actuality, Star Trek was the proper name of the original series, et al.), etc.
So: consistent with similar posts (and similar discussions, e.g., here), I propose usage of Star Trek (plain) in Wikipedia for general references to the universe, franchise, or phenomenon, and the use of Star Trek /: The Original Series (italics) only when referring to the original series (and similarly, where it appears in a name of a movie, production, etc.). If this is acceptable, I encourage users to make such editions on related pages when they come across them. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Which Earth Navy(ies), were the TOS rank insignias (wrist stripes) based on? Mightberight/wrong 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)- PS: I meant no disrespect to Wiki Policy , the previous Star Trek question was my own, I just wanted to edit it to a less cumbersome form.
That's O'k', no harm done, by the way, would you know the answer to my Rank Insignia question? Mightberight/wrong 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
Thank you for the help E Pluribus Anthony, live long and prosper. Mightberight/wrong 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Years | Series Name | Abbrev. | Episodes | Notes |
1966-1969 | Star Trek | TOS | 79 | excluding unaired pilot |
1973-1974 | Star Trek | TAS or TAA | 22 | animated |
1978 | Star Trek: Phase II | 0 | not produced | |
1987-1994 | Star Trek: The Next Generation | TNG | 178 | |
1993-1999 | Star Trek: Deep Space Nine | DS9 | 176 | |
1995-2001 | Star Trek: Voyager | VOY or VGR | 172 | |
2001-2005 | Star Trek: Enterprise | ENT | 98 | |
725 | TOTAL |
Why doesn't this table count "The Cage"? It is most definitely a Star Trek episode, and I don't see how anyone could question its canonicity. This brings the count to 726.-- StAkAr Karnak 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Year | Movie Title | Director |
1979 | Star Trek: The Motion Picture | Robert Wise |
1982 | Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan | Nicholas Meyer |
1984 | Star Trek III: The Search for Spock | Leonard Nimoy |
1986 | Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home | Leonard Nimoy |
1989 | Star Trek V: The Final Frontier | William Shatner |
1991 | Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country | Nicholas Meyer |
1994 | Star Trek: Generations | David Carson |
1996 | Star Trek: First Contact | Jonathan Frakes |
1998 | Star Trek: Insurrection | Jonathan Frakes |
2002 | Star Trek: Nemesis | Stuart Baird |
The following text was originally posted in the Continuation of Enterprise subsection, but I suspect the user intended it for the Talk page. 23skidoo 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I am disappointed that Enterprise wasn't allowed to continue. Although debatable whether or not audience numbers had declined, the last 2 seasons saw a lot of changes behind the scenes and with the quality of the writing. I suspect UPN set up the series to fail. Had ratings expectations that no series could reach. The audience was also to blame. Many knew that this would be the last series so found hard to get involved with the stories. If the series went the whole 7 or longer seasons what would happen after that. UPN got what's coming to them for giving up on Enterprise so soon. The ratings and quality for the current crop of series with the exception of 1 has been pathetic. I am hoping very soon network execs will get their heads of their butts and realize it is better to have steady moderately high ratings with a loyal audience. They had that with all the series.-- Tjkphilosofe 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Yes my intention is for this to be open for discussion. Oops about where I originally put it.-- Tjkphilosofe 07:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
They did not have moderately high ratings, nor did they have an especially loyal audience, aside from a very core group of fans. But then, every single show always has a core group of fans. Here's the linky to the audiences Star Trek Ratings. I don't understand why I keep reading these claims about audience ratings that are demonstrably not true.-- Nephandus 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)I am in total agreement. You cannot believe the ratings that UPN released to show how well Enterprise did. I keep trying to point out that there was another reason for canceling the series other than poor ratings. However others quote UPN press release. These people who beieve those numbers probably also still believe that Santa actually exist. First thing to remember is that networks lie.-- Tjkphilosofe 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It says "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise. It has a tentative release date of 2007, and it's been rumoured that Nicholas Meyer(Director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) will be helming this new venture." but this is incorrect. He didn't direct The Voyage Home that was Leonard Nimoy. But, I cant seem to find the edit section to remove it. Its not under the sub-heading edit for "motion pictures" nor is that text contained in the main page.
A user has been changing the spelling of Jackson Roykirk (a character from the TOS episode The Changeling to "Jackson Roy Kirk". I've never encountered this spelling in all my years as a Trek fan, not to mention it makes no sense since it would suggest the guy was a relative of JT Kirk, which he clearly isn't. I thought I'd put the comment on the general Trek page so that someone can take a look at this. 23skidoo 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess no one's bothered looking at the startrek.com library, where it sais "Roykirk" rather than "Roy Kirk." ethernaut
There really is a planet named "Alderaan" in the Star Trek line of fictional work, which happens to be the name of the sharded planet on Star Wars. Now why did they put that there, and why would Lucasfilm permit this? Look up Alderaan on [ Alpha] (the Star Trek wiki) -- Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Seeing that Harry Kim is Korean in descent, that had me start thinking about what happened to the Koreas between now and then. Do North and South Korea reunify under the Communist or Capitalist government? Do they stay divided to the day a single world government takes place? As I'm also half-Korean, it makes me all the more curious. Reply to my User Talk page if you wish. -- Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
How the hell can such good series as Voyager and Enterprise get low rating? are all the trek fans old ppl who dont like computer special effects or what? i think u should shame. All of u who claim to like star trek and then give it low rating, a true trek liker never gives low rating. Star trek deserves the best and nothing else.
You know I agree I don't understand why Enterprise is claimed to have done poorly in the ratings and some have said that Voyager had slumping ratings towards the end. Although it is possible that these individuals are only quoting network and studio execs. I believe something else was afoot. Paramount did all they could to sabotage Enterprise.
At beginning Enterprise got off to the usual slow start like TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY but as the series went along improved. Voy did extreming well towards the end.-- Tjkphilosofe 10:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
They are quoting Nielsen ratings, which did confirm the executive’s viewpoints. Although, the Nielsen Ratings system is quite controversial, as only a small minority of people have Nielsen boxes, and so use of them is said not to be amazingly accurate by groups such as [8], of who have hoped to save enterprise from the beginning.
Although Enterprise did have vast improvements in its latter series, the increase in ratings was apparently not good enough for a show which costs millions to make per episode. It is easy to understand the decision from a business point of view.
Some of the stories basically became redone episodes of treks gone-by. The execs obviously thought a "rest" would bring about a creative revival in the future.....perhaps along Dr Who's lines. (Allowing them to make big money from Trek once more)
I say all this despite being a fan. The low ratings are not a surprise.....it was difficult for people to come and watch Enterprise mid season and pick up the storyline...just look at the Xindi arc to tell you that. Agent Blightsoot 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely correct about neilsen ratings. It is a dinosaur. Because of my schedule I record everything and watch later. With dvrs and tivo networks never be able to get an accurate number for who is watching anything.-- Tjkphilosofe 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There was no increase in ratings. You can look at the data yourself here Star Trek Ratings.
There is no indication that Nielsen's ratings system works any differently for Voyager than it did for other more successful programs. If it was innacurate, this would be revealed as widely fluctuating ratings rather than the steady downward trend that is consistent with the drops in the other series. As for the claim that only a small percentage of viewers have Nielsen People Meters, that's only relevant if a disporportionate amount of viewers don't have them. As it turns out, the same People Meter data were replicated by a seperate sample and methodology (the diaries) in the US. In Canada, with yet another sample in a seperate country (with similar viewing habits), the data were again confirmed. Also in Canada, Nielsen's competitor - BBM Canada - also had similar numbers with its own two seperate samples and methodologies. So in total, we have a confirmed trend in two countries, across 5 samples and 4 different methodologies (US and Canada Mark 2 meters, US diaries, PM meter, US diary, BBM diary)
Nielsen does include time-shifting, as well as VCR taping. You can contact them yourself to confirm at nielsenmedia.com or nielsenmedia.ca. Also, the Tivo top 20 (created with Nielsen) available from their site, did not list Voyager or Enterprise as one of the top time-shifted programs anyway - which would be important in establishing whether or not a disporportionate amount of PVR users recorded it.
As for Bakula's claim, I was able to make the same projection of a season 3 or 4 crash by projecting the continued rate of audience bleed found in Voyager throughout Enterprise's run. Once it hit dropped below 2%, it was likely to be cancelled, and it was. No mystery, no conspiracy. It's about that simple.
I understand there are some superfans here. Let's not clutter the discussion with easily disproven conspiracy theories and libelous claims about Nielsen Media Research. -- Nephandus 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In the Motion Pictures section there's a bit of discussion about the "odd film rule" and someone wrote that Trek 7 (Generations) is an exception as it's a "firm fan favorite". I'm not sure if that's correct. My understanding is that the film has never been regarded very highly - in part because of Kirk's fate. While it doesn't seem to be hated as much as Nemesis, I don't agree that it can be called a "firm fan favorite". But before I delete that sentence I wanted to gauge thoughts on this. Maybe I'm wrong? 23skidoo 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As a Trek fan, there's one thing that's always caused my eyebrow to rise (like Spock's). By Star Trek VI, the Enterprise-A had, 3 Captains & 3 Commanders, Starfleet could have instantly lost 6 fine officers in one catastrophy. Should this be mentioned in the article? What do you think, fellow Trek fans. GoodDay 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This page is already way too long, but has anyone mentioned the even numbers theory or the number 47 theory? If so feel free to delete this entry. Basically the even numbers theory suggests that even numbered Star Trek films are good 2, 4, 6, 8 being the best examples while odd numbered ones are bad 1,3,5,7,9 all not being up to snuff...The number 47, according to the 47 Society web page (which I hasten to add is a spoof), is apparently used whenever possible in NG, Voyager and DS9 as a kind of in joke about the power of an apparently random number. Again feel free to delete if this has already come up...AGM
Didn't Data use the 47 theory thingy to make his blinking realistic? SaintDante 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there an article on Paramount's Star Trek canon policy? If not, I'll create one. The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have a section covering the great cultural impact the series has had? I would have thought that, it being a former featured article, would have already had that well covered. I know there are several spin-off articles on Wikipedia that cover the cultural impact of Star Trek, but shouldn't this main one have a section devoted to it? The Wookieepedian 07:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
After looking over both the sections on the TV series, and on the films, I found what I consider to be yet another major fault in this article: it lacks explanation of plot. IMHO, each section devoted to a TV series, for example, should give a brief synopsis of the show (what happens in it, who the major players are, etc). Everything else included is OK, but it looks to me as if these sections, at times, are merely collections of trivia about the shows or films, and not organized or written in a specific format. And all the section on the films seems to do, is basically explain how fans perceive the films, rather than explaining what the films are about over all, and giving general and fan reactions.
Now, E Pluribus Anthony and I have properly expanded the section on Canonicity and other stories. That's taken care of. Yet there is still not a section explaining the cultural impact and general reception the Star Trek franchise has had. Someone needs to work on that. I am still surprised, in a way, that this was featured when it was. In my opinion, it still needs a lot of work. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw on my watchlist that someone reverted this. It should not be in the article but I found the first part humerous.-- Gbleem 06:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Toronto Police see two kinds of pedophile: Star Trek and Star Wars.
" Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Where no man..." & "to explore...seek out" & were coined by John DF ( Associate Producer & Story Ed); "Space, the final frontier..." by Sam Peeples (title of the 2d pilot, for the non- Trekkers, which was Dx James Goldstone). "STTOS" won 2 Emmys. Shocked? They were for Production Design... The show, surprisingly, never got above #52 in the ratings; by Season 3, they were down by over half. It was the first 1hr color SF series in primetime for adults. It wrapped (with an episode broadcast 3 June 1969, to an 8.8 rating) on 9 Jan 1969, 1 day & US$6000 over... If only I could source it... Trekphiler 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac| (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What's with the Western science fiction category? Looks like someone put most if not all of the Star Treks in this category, but except for a couple of episodes (Spectre of the Gun, ENT's North Star) there really hasn't been much western-style SF in Trek. Yes I know it's inspired by Wagon Train, but Star Wars was inspired by Seven Samurai and you don't see it listed in the Japanese science fiction category. Unless someone can give a good rationale for keeping the Trek titles in the category, I may just go ahead and delete it. 23skidoo 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Trekkie and therefore didn't know in what year the original series was set. I don't believe this information is anywhere within the article. 23rd century? 24th? SyntaxPC 14:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that it's terribly important, but I've noticed that a great deal of Star Trek screenshots on Wikipedia are tagged {{ film-screenshot}} rather than {{ tv-screenshot}}. How should we rectify this? Should we rectify this? Also, should this conversation be taking place elsewhere? I like things nice and clean, ha. - Dwiki 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
the article makes no mention that NASA's prototype space shuttle was named "enterprise" after the petitioning of many trekkies...would it be apprpriate to mention this in the article, i think it certainly warrants a mention somewhere... BFS
I liked the article, I don't understand why some have dismissed it as "poop" - Star Trek is perhaps the most culturally significan TV programme in history as you say. Perhaps you should mention the various "treknology" that has come out of the series too. Stuff that's been "invented" through the series. Needless injections and so on.... keep up the good work! BFS
Gator1 'removed as not "related to the production and influence of the franchise."'
from the "References" section, the following:-
Any discussion about this??!! ~~JohnI~~
Just curious about claims that there were three years of development. Any show can go through tremendous periods of time in creation and network pitching ... but the series itself, in true pre-production, was actually a matter of months. So, is it possible to clarify this statement or remove it altogether? Syfymichael 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"... which, in turn, increased ratings and allowed the series to continue for four more seasons."
I am a television industry research professional with access to ratings information. I deleted this line because it was incorrect factually.
Each successive season of Star Trek Voyager received lower ratings, on average, than each previous season. It is possible that the ratings loss might have been more severe had they not made the switch, but such speculation and does not belong in this entry.
A citation?
23 Skidoo, you are the person who made the original, and incorrect, unsubstantiated claim that Voyager ratings increased with the addition of the Seven of Nine character. Why did you "restore" this unsubstantiated claim while asking me to cite mine?
[...]
Keep in mind that Entertainment Weekly is only a weekly magazine, and ratings fluctuations are quite normal from week to week for any program. When the industry is looking at the performance of a show, they average several episodes together - generally at least four while in mid-season. If you are judging performance year over year, then the appropriate measure is an entire season of episodes, compared with the previous one. In this case, if any entertainment magazine ran an article, they would most likely have done it to coincide with the premier of the character (which is when Paramount's PR department would be pushiing stories about the change). This means the article would hit early in the season - maybe even in the season premiere, after a cliffhanger, and in an episode featuring the more popular "Borg" villains. Chances are there was a brief ratings spike then for an episode or two - though not necessarily attributable to the new character, and it certainly was not sustained across the season.
I will look into the options, if any, of revealing the ratings here, however that runs into a slippery slope of publishing all ratings for every show on Wikipedia, and that's just not going to wash.
All I can give you is my best assurance that your twouncited claims are simply untrue:
1. The addition of Seven of Nine did not increase the ratings of that season over the previous season, nor did any subsequent season with Seven of Nine have higher ratings than any of the seasons that preceded the character's introduction.
2. Even if the ratings did indicate a sustained increase (which they did not), there is no evidence to suggest that Seven's appearance would have been the sole factor to cause ratings to rise (again, which they didn't).
Frankly, your uncited claim if ratings increasing season by season smacks of more of fanboy adoration than factual accuracy. I would kindly ask that you remove your claim until you can substantiate it. And to substantiate the claim, you will likely end up contacting me anyway.
Nephandus 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus
Still needs a cite either way, no matter who you are or work for. Gator (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The original claim was not cited, is POV, and is now disputed factually, and is also in conflict with the wiki article devoted specifically to Voyager, which indicates yearly ratings dropoff.
My proposed correction did NOT introduce a new uncited claim or disputed fact. Would not the proper edit be to remove the disputed fact until it is verified; NOT by restoring the disputed, unverified claim? What's worse, an alleged POV edit, made by someone who claims to be a media research professional (who, in fact, would be a primary source), or a verified, disputed, speculative POV entry?
I've also requested a citation that the addition of Seven was in response to a direct cancellation threat in Season 3, rather than a more general and ongoing attempt to increase ratings. Since it was unsuccessful in reversing the trend, and the show did indeed continue for another four seasons of successive dropoff, I find it unlikely that it was in any specific danger of cancellation in season 3.
Nephandus 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus
Both claims need to be cited which is why a citation needed tag was placed. This is simple. Find a cite (eitehr way) and put it in. If not, then the sentence, eventually, needs to go. There's nothing else to discuss. Gator (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's the cite that indicates the ratings for Voyager did not rise after the addition of Seven of Nine.
Star Trek Ratings compilation 23skidoo, the ratings compilation is from Cyrus on Trekbbs, with whom I'm sure you are familiar.
Nephandus
01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Nephandus
Just to set the record straight, I posted the information based upon at least 3 different magazine articles that I read on the subject: Entertainment Weekly, Starlog, and one other magazine that the title escapes me. I added the information back in my early days as an editor when I wasn't aware that such information needed to be cited. I resent the implication that I was lying. I don't make this crap up. The fact there is proof to the contrary is fine, but nonetheless the rumor has existed for a number of years and should be mentioned. 23skidoo 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The implication is that you were mistaken - not that you were lying. As I discussed above, ratings fluctuate within seasons. If your magazine articles were written early in the fall season (when more people watch TV), coming off a cliffhanger with the Borg, it's possible those single eps were higher rated than the rest of the season, and that the magazines you mentioned could have tried to attribute the "success" to the new character. It's not like they would go back and do another story immediately afterwards though when the ratings took a dive, since they don't keep these things on a barometer, and they likely don't want to annoy the Paramount PR department.
I do take issue with the idea of a "rumour" that the ratings increased though. I've certainly never heard it and I would have. If you feel it is of vital importance to connect the introduction of Seven to a ratings grab, it's likely undisputed that her appearance was intended to pander to a male audience (albeit it was unsuccessful in raising the ratings), since her overt sexual appearance was not otherwise a factor of her character except in a single episode, nor was it apparently noticed by the other characters even though her "attire" was entirely uncharacteristic of any other character on the show (uniformed or not). Or, you can simply link to the character's own entry, which discusses that very issue. -- Nephandus 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
205.188.117.5 keeps replacing the picture but won't, after asking him to twice, come here to discuss it before making the change, so I will do it for him. I for one, prefer the current picture to the rear view picture, but its more important that the user come here and propose the change so we can reach a consensus before unilaterally changing it without discussion.
What are people's preferences. I would ask 205.188.117.5 not to change it again until we've reached a decision. Thanks. Gator (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's great and all, but there was no discussion. There needs to be some now. Please no more reverting. Gator (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and why don't you register. Your changing IP address is hard to follow. Gator (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Here are the two pictures:
250px|The origional starship Enterprise
vs
The starship Enterprise as it appeared on Star Trek
Thoughts? Gator (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good argument for the TOS page, but the regular Star Trek page....where's the problem? It's not meant ot illustrte the TOS, just what the original Enterprise looked like. Gator (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we're being too technical here, but I guess I would agree that a shot from the actual original series would be preferable, but the picture of the ship's ass is not a good substitute as far as I'm concerned so I, reluctantly, support the current picture until a better one is offered. The ass shot picture is not better IMHO. Gator (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere, but the end of the Enterprise's warp nacelles changed from the pilots (where they look like vents) to the rest of the series (where the vents were replaced with spheres). Sometimes footage of the ship from the pilots was used in later episodes so occasionally the vents one would show up! Does anyone have images for both types? Marky1981 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Another reason why I don't the "ass shot" picture. (Glad you weren't offended). I can;t beleive that there aren't any better pics out there.... Gator (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. That was my entire point to the anon user, who hasn't bothered arguing for his picture, in the first place!
the third paragraph in the cultural impact - 1st sentence about classical mythology. could someone please justify the statement with some specifics? and the 2nd sentence to me is utter gibberish. also how do i do a tilde? - andrew roberts
Hello, Star Trek freaks, I got to spread da word, so come to http://Memory-Alpha.com// to edit, THANK YOU. Whopper 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If you check out www.imdb.com or any other site that tracks these things, you will discover that Star Trek:TNG exceeds the number of nominations and awards earned by Deep Space Nine -both for technical and non-technical, nominations and wins, individual episodes abd full series, and genre and non-genre awards. DS9 did not exceed TNG's critical acclaim - not even close. -- Nephandus 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Star Trek permitted in the muslim world? I just wrote this question in detail in the Ferengi section, but realized that section might be very seldom read, so I am re-stating the question here.
I recall that Ferengi had a strict dress code for women. Otherwise one might be tempted to take them off! What sexual depravity! . Other abrahamic religions promise the loving presence of God, but Islam promises worldly success like money and women, both in this life and the next. Muslims tend to regard Merchants as being the only decent job, which is why so many of them are merchants, partly because Mohammed himself is considered an ideal, and was first a merchant, but also, when necessary, a soldier. Traditionally they have had one single religious leader who took the role after Mohammed, I think it was the Caliph, but that part is not currently in use, although there are plenty of prominent people trying to take up that role. Ferengi also have, if I recall rightly, one religious leader. I could list a number of other possible similarities, so I went to this article and saw that Ferengi is an arab word for merchant. DanielDemaret 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, are does Star Trek have atheist undertones? SaintDante 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wow my question turned into a full out debate. Sweet. But my main thought of this came when the TNG crew visited a planet and they thought Picard was God. This didnt bother me much but Picard said that the race should have been rational enough to relize there isnt a God. Are that is how it seemed to me. SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But Thanks People usualy just ignore my questins SaintDante 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to have a link to homosexual behaviour. There was no homosexual behaviour in the series and there was not any characters. There is no need to bring an agenda to something that did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.22.231 ( talk • contribs) 21:59 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You all have forced an agenda on the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.137.77 ( talk • contribs) 01:28 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if i could get a list on what the color of the shirts represent. like blue is worn by blah and rank blah and you get the idea. I would also like to compare different seasons and shows of this. I would be very grateful. SaintDante 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) TOS:
TNG and higher:
I got this information from memory and verified with
this link. —
File:Ottawa flag.png
nath
a
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I also have one more request. I would be grateful to get a list of planet classes and their meanings. I am sorry if I am annoying any one with these requests. SaintDante 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintDante ( talk • contribs) 20:52 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the first info box, it mentions Vulcans as a major planetary nation. It is not, it's part of the United Federation of Planets and should not be mentioned as a major planetary nation. -- Feelgood 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Star Trek/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
93 citations, 14 images. JJ98 ( Talk) 08:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
Last edited at 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)