![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
redirects here, but isn't discussed in the article. It should either have its own article (cf. Harry Potter universe or Matrix universe) or it should be deleted. Serendi pod ous 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This page has vastly improved since its last GA run. This page hasn't gone though a nomination in 45 years. I am going to try again.
Oldag07 (
talk)
01:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pass
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like no matter how we try to work it the whole TOS issue in the introductory section is going to be "chunky". The name of the show was Star Trek. I think the apocryphal re-labeling mentioned later in the section is sufficient. Thoughts? -- HullIntegrity ( talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC) **And I am probably dredging up old arguments again, right?**
I moved the Google Doodle comment to the end of cultural impact (in the intro it sounds like an advertisement for Google), but it is still awkward there as it is just sort of sitting there. Anyone have a better idea? I think it is interesting, but not THAT big of a deal. -- HullIntegrity ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Oldag07 ( talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of the crossovers section. Crossovers make up a minor part of the franchise, not something that should be in the official summary of the franchise as a whole. Objections? I plan on removing it this weekend if there isn't any. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I might try to add the show specific crossovers to the actual show pages first, but unless someone objects, I will remove the crossovers section this weekend. Oldag07 ( talk) 11:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed it. Preserved most recent version of the section here.
Oldag07 (
talk)
06:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Several characters within the Star Trek franchise, primary and secondary, often made crossover appearances between one live-action series and another. This included appearances of established characters on premiere episodes of new series, and a few long-term transfers from one series to another. The appearances of Spock on Next Generation and of the time-travel of the crew of Deep Space Nine to the era of The Original Series were especially lauded by both fans and critics. [1] [2] [3] On the other hand, the appearance of Next Generation characters in the final episode of Enterprise, was poorly received. [4] [5]
I never liked this phrase:
I have tried to write something to replace it, but this just doesn't feel right.
Suggestions? Oldag07 ( talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll put it up, due to lack of comments. I am going to try to make it fit best, but please fix it as you see fit.
Oldag07 (
talk)
15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In the intro paragraph, it says "multiracial cast", which makes sense, but "multiracial kiss" suggests some kind of an inter-planetary orgy. I think it should be "interracial kiss", which is indeed what it is called further down the article. I don't know how to edit the intro paragraph, so I am trying this, hoping someone will read this and make the change. (If I am posting this in the wrong place, please kindly move it where it belongs.)
Kisses are important, you know, most of us started with one.
It says to put four tildes. Kinda weird, but here goes:
97.127.183.120 ( talk) 03:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the cast section to this page Star Trek (film series). To me it seems overly detailed for a page dedicated to Star Trek as a whole, but I don't feel strongly if you want to move it back. I did make a few changes to the chart. Spock in the movie The Search for Spock was played by multiple actors. Oldag07 ( talk) 23:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Per our BLP policy, contentious claims need multiple reliable sources but there is a lot of stuff about Roddenberry that makes some really bold claims with no references at all. The BLP policy does cover recently dead figures. Could someone attempt to source these claims. I would rather not add citation tags but it may have to come to that.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Below are some fairly major claims that were inserted into the article without proper sourcing. I can't find a supporting source in the Refs section, either, so they have been moved here until a source can be cited.
From After Roddenberry:
The show also ran for seven seasons until 2001, making it the longest-running show in UPN's history.
From The Original Series (1966–1969):
The show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was not involved in the show during its third and final year of production due to a dispute with NBC, with the exception of having co-authored two episodes produced that year.
From The Next Generation (1987–1994):
The first two seasons were largely produced by the original creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry. Beginning in Season 3, the primary overseer of the show was Rick Berman who also largely responsible for the remaining Trek television series as well as the films involving the cast of The Next Generation.
Drama shows in that era, as opposed to a talk show or game shows, rarely went into syndication in first run rather than airing on the same network throughout America. Next Generation became one of the most popular syndicated shows of its era and inaugurated a market for syndicated science fiction series.
Please do not re-insert these claims without citing a reliable source supporting their assertions. (IMDB and MemoryAlpha are user-contributed and not, in most cases, considered reliable.) — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
National Broadcasting Company edited by Michele Hilmes, Michael Lowell Henry page 210. My guess is that virtually every autobiography of the original cast will back up GR's walkout from season 3.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The colour coding, the orange and the orange-pink, are very hard to distinguish. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've tightened the opening sentences. They were absolutely fine but I felt as though we needed an article opening without critic opinions or awards mentioned at least for the first three or four sentences. I've rewritten the opening but if you feel as though the earlier version was better then feel free to restore that version.
Sluffs ( talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the section describing the Enterprise TV show, it mentions "... the voyages of Earth's first warp-five capable starship." I feel certain this should be warp drive, but it is also possible that warp-five is some Star Trek thing of which I was unaware. So I figured I would mention something here. Donpayette ( talk) 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
More than likely it's just a term you've not heard before: Star Trek: Enterprise#Cast of characters "captain of Earth's first Warp 5 starship, Enterprise" Narom ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
For some reasons, the article did not reflect reality (premiere of Star Trek on April 7 in Sydney), but the "official" version (whatever that entails). That is of course a gross mistake, Wikipedia is not an "official" Paramount medium, it must report reality, not "official" versions of it. -- 79.223.16.15 ( talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Two things: firstly the column on the table is named 'Release date' and not 'Premiered'; secondly the dates listed for all of the other films are all the dates that they went on general release. So for consistancy the May 8th date is the correct one for the table. Additionally the 11th film wasn't first shown in Sydney; the day before on April 6th, 2009 Leonard Nimoy and a couple of the film's producers took the film to a cinema in Buda, Texas, intentionally stopped a showing of 'Wrath of Khan' and had the 11th film played for the expectant audience instead. 81.145.47.66 ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox on this article for some reason only lists the films and the TV shows and doesn't include the comics, novels and numerous video game tie-ins. Why is that? It's a media franchise infobox after all... -- DesignDeath ( talk) 20:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"In the year 2013, the 12th Annual Official STAR TREK Convention held in the United States in Las Vegas, Nevada broke the previous Guinness world record for the largest gathering of people dressed as Star Trek characters, having counted 1085 people. [6] [7]"
For an article that is supposed to be about Star Trek as a whole, this seems obscure. Like talking about Obama, and having a whole section of the article about what is his favorite color. It fit in well in the Cultural influence of Star Trek page. Note that there are a lot of records Star Trek has broke. [1] A section about it, or even a paragraph would include multiple records that the franchise as earned. Oldag07 ( talk) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some inconsistancy in how the last two feature films are catagorized. The chart at the start of the 'Production History' section they are titled 'Alternate Reality film series': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Production_history. Yet further down the part of that section discussing these films is titled 'Reboot': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Reboot. However, the chart in the 'Film Franchise' section they are called 'J.J. Abrams cast': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Feature_films. Then on the template at the bottom of the page they are called 'Alternate Reality' again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#External_links. Shouldn't they all be titled the same so as not to cause confusion by readers?
To that end, I propose that all be titled 'Reboot', including the template. First, 'Alternate Reality' is an in-universe description that is inconsistant with how other parts in the Star Trek franchise are titled. 'The Original Series' is not titled 'Original Timeline: Captain Kirk Era'. It is titled 'The Original Series'. Same is true of the 'The Animated Series', 'The Next Generation', etc. Second, WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here. Most refer to the 2009 film as a reboot. Thus, it makes sense to call it a reboot here too. It is also consistant with how other franchises that have had reboots are titled on Wikipedia such as Planet of the Apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_of_the_Apes.
I'd like to hear the thoughts of other editors on this. SonOfThornhill ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally it is accepted that the new films are 'Alternate reality (I've changed the cast section on the table to reflect this as in any case 'JJ Cast' is erronious as they may make additional films without JJ's input but with the same cast). In regards to the reboot bit, the term is really only being used in the context that the series has been restarted which is true and therefore it is accurate to say it has been 'rebooted', however in the context of the series/ franchise as a whole 'Alternate Reality' is the correct term (and for the record 'Original Kirk Era' and other similar phrases are being used to differentiate between the two in both official and unofficial capacities). --
81.145.47.66 (
talk)
13:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
'Alternate Reality' is used on the official sites and by the majority of the fandom, not to mention on both film's wiki pages and on the Memory Alpha and Beta wikis. As I stated it's all about the context and the 'reboot' term is used by general film and sci-fi websites and sources when discussing them. I've also changed the cast definition back, as I previously stated 'JJ cast' is untenable as it become inaccurate possibly as soon as the next film due to JJ's other commitments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.47.66 ( talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:Real world applies here. In the context of the real-world production history, the new films are reboots. In the context of the fictional Star Trek universe, the events take place in an alternate reality. "Alternate reality" is appropriate for use in a plot summary where the context is the fictional world, but I would like to use "reboot" everywhere else (including the chart). Braincricket ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
201, I get what you're saying, and I'm not opposed to using the phrase alternate timeline series or whatever, but it seems like you're trying to purge the article of all uses of reboot. For example, I think the section header which was changed from "Reboot" to "The J.J. Abrams Films" sounds clumsy now. I prefer "Reboot" and I think we're justified in using that term. As for "accuracy of fact", the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and plenty of reliable sources refer to the new series as a reboot even though Leonard Nemoy is in them. Here's a search engine test using Google News:
search string | approx. hits |
---|---|
star trek "reboot" -wikipedia | 5500 |
star trek "alternate timeline" -wikipedia | 50 |
star trek "alternate reality" -wikipedia | 10 |
star trek "alternate universe" -wikipedia | 100 |
Sources for "reboot" include the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, MTV, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, USA Today, Fox News, etc. Braincricket ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is to use the "reboot" language, since that is main term used in the media, and from the reliable 3rd-party sources that we source our information. Wikipedia isn't a fan-website, but if there's a reliable, 3rd-party article (not from a fan website) about how fans use the term "alternate reality" instead of "reboot", then I've no problem with that being stated in the article somewhere. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a question, but isn't reboot means "telling the same story in a new way, to bring the idea back to life"? Sure, they want to bring the franchise back to life and some call it reboot, but as for movies itself it isn't reboot. Story start at distant future in "old universe/franchise" with Leonard Nimoy and then moves to "new changed reality", it can't be a reboot for a movie, if actor from old movie goes to new one and represent a role from , again, old one! I agree that these movies is a reboot for entire franchise, but when we talk about movies itself using reboot is completely wrong as it may confuse readers. And there is nothing to do with fans and wikias, this is wikipedia, and we have to use terms here correctly! So i suggest to use "reboot" only when talk about entire franchise, but for movies itself - "Alternate reality"/"Changed reality" or something else (new discussion)!
Vilnisr
T |
C
16:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
in my opinion this should be splited into "real Star Trek", or "old Star Trek" or "legacy Star Trek" and the new Version of Jar Jar Abrams. The inconsistency will be getting worse and worse. 5.147.168.4 ( talk) 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed Star Trek (franchise) in line with other similar articles. REVUpminster ( talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In heading Cultural impact it is stated that Plato's Stepchildren features the fist scripted interracial kiss. It should be specified that this was The first scripted interracial kiss between an African American and a Caucasian. Other interracial kisses had been scripted and aired between Caucasians and latinos or those of hispanic decent, and of Asian decent. [8] Danjgrau ( talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Thank you I will attempt to find more reliable sources.-- Danjgrau ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not yet a category and I think the first example that comes to most peoples minds would be Star Trek. I also think episodes that deal with Romulan cloaking device should either be invisibility in fiction or cloaking devices in fiction, depending on whether or not the light is actually being bent around or passing completely through an object. CensoredScribe ( talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Star Trek has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to add an entry under parodies about the IRS training video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exp6QNEamCE) and subsequent complaints.
Myrce ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is still locked i wanted to change the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception_and_home_media_release but i cannot edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 ( talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
redirects here, but isn't discussed in the article. It should either have its own article (cf. Harry Potter universe or Matrix universe) or it should be deleted. Serendi pod ous 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This page has vastly improved since its last GA run. This page hasn't gone though a nomination in 45 years. I am going to try again.
Oldag07 (
talk)
01:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sjones23 ( talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pass
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like no matter how we try to work it the whole TOS issue in the introductory section is going to be "chunky". The name of the show was Star Trek. I think the apocryphal re-labeling mentioned later in the section is sufficient. Thoughts? -- HullIntegrity ( talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC) **And I am probably dredging up old arguments again, right?**
I moved the Google Doodle comment to the end of cultural impact (in the intro it sounds like an advertisement for Google), but it is still awkward there as it is just sort of sitting there. Anyone have a better idea? I think it is interesting, but not THAT big of a deal. -- HullIntegrity ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Oldag07 ( talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of the crossovers section. Crossovers make up a minor part of the franchise, not something that should be in the official summary of the franchise as a whole. Objections? I plan on removing it this weekend if there isn't any. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I might try to add the show specific crossovers to the actual show pages first, but unless someone objects, I will remove the crossovers section this weekend. Oldag07 ( talk) 11:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed it. Preserved most recent version of the section here.
Oldag07 (
talk)
06:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Several characters within the Star Trek franchise, primary and secondary, often made crossover appearances between one live-action series and another. This included appearances of established characters on premiere episodes of new series, and a few long-term transfers from one series to another. The appearances of Spock on Next Generation and of the time-travel of the crew of Deep Space Nine to the era of The Original Series were especially lauded by both fans and critics. [1] [2] [3] On the other hand, the appearance of Next Generation characters in the final episode of Enterprise, was poorly received. [4] [5]
I never liked this phrase:
I have tried to write something to replace it, but this just doesn't feel right.
Suggestions? Oldag07 ( talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll put it up, due to lack of comments. I am going to try to make it fit best, but please fix it as you see fit.
Oldag07 (
talk)
15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In the intro paragraph, it says "multiracial cast", which makes sense, but "multiracial kiss" suggests some kind of an inter-planetary orgy. I think it should be "interracial kiss", which is indeed what it is called further down the article. I don't know how to edit the intro paragraph, so I am trying this, hoping someone will read this and make the change. (If I am posting this in the wrong place, please kindly move it where it belongs.)
Kisses are important, you know, most of us started with one.
It says to put four tildes. Kinda weird, but here goes:
97.127.183.120 ( talk) 03:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the cast section to this page Star Trek (film series). To me it seems overly detailed for a page dedicated to Star Trek as a whole, but I don't feel strongly if you want to move it back. I did make a few changes to the chart. Spock in the movie The Search for Spock was played by multiple actors. Oldag07 ( talk) 23:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Per our BLP policy, contentious claims need multiple reliable sources but there is a lot of stuff about Roddenberry that makes some really bold claims with no references at all. The BLP policy does cover recently dead figures. Could someone attempt to source these claims. I would rather not add citation tags but it may have to come to that.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Below are some fairly major claims that were inserted into the article without proper sourcing. I can't find a supporting source in the Refs section, either, so they have been moved here until a source can be cited.
From After Roddenberry:
The show also ran for seven seasons until 2001, making it the longest-running show in UPN's history.
From The Original Series (1966–1969):
The show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was not involved in the show during its third and final year of production due to a dispute with NBC, with the exception of having co-authored two episodes produced that year.
From The Next Generation (1987–1994):
The first two seasons were largely produced by the original creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry. Beginning in Season 3, the primary overseer of the show was Rick Berman who also largely responsible for the remaining Trek television series as well as the films involving the cast of The Next Generation.
Drama shows in that era, as opposed to a talk show or game shows, rarely went into syndication in first run rather than airing on the same network throughout America. Next Generation became one of the most popular syndicated shows of its era and inaugurated a market for syndicated science fiction series.
Please do not re-insert these claims without citing a reliable source supporting their assertions. (IMDB and MemoryAlpha are user-contributed and not, in most cases, considered reliable.) — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
National Broadcasting Company edited by Michele Hilmes, Michael Lowell Henry page 210. My guess is that virtually every autobiography of the original cast will back up GR's walkout from season 3.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The colour coding, the orange and the orange-pink, are very hard to distinguish. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've tightened the opening sentences. They were absolutely fine but I felt as though we needed an article opening without critic opinions or awards mentioned at least for the first three or four sentences. I've rewritten the opening but if you feel as though the earlier version was better then feel free to restore that version.
Sluffs ( talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the section describing the Enterprise TV show, it mentions "... the voyages of Earth's first warp-five capable starship." I feel certain this should be warp drive, but it is also possible that warp-five is some Star Trek thing of which I was unaware. So I figured I would mention something here. Donpayette ( talk) 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
More than likely it's just a term you've not heard before: Star Trek: Enterprise#Cast of characters "captain of Earth's first Warp 5 starship, Enterprise" Narom ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
For some reasons, the article did not reflect reality (premiere of Star Trek on April 7 in Sydney), but the "official" version (whatever that entails). That is of course a gross mistake, Wikipedia is not an "official" Paramount medium, it must report reality, not "official" versions of it. -- 79.223.16.15 ( talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Two things: firstly the column on the table is named 'Release date' and not 'Premiered'; secondly the dates listed for all of the other films are all the dates that they went on general release. So for consistancy the May 8th date is the correct one for the table. Additionally the 11th film wasn't first shown in Sydney; the day before on April 6th, 2009 Leonard Nimoy and a couple of the film's producers took the film to a cinema in Buda, Texas, intentionally stopped a showing of 'Wrath of Khan' and had the 11th film played for the expectant audience instead. 81.145.47.66 ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox on this article for some reason only lists the films and the TV shows and doesn't include the comics, novels and numerous video game tie-ins. Why is that? It's a media franchise infobox after all... -- DesignDeath ( talk) 20:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"In the year 2013, the 12th Annual Official STAR TREK Convention held in the United States in Las Vegas, Nevada broke the previous Guinness world record for the largest gathering of people dressed as Star Trek characters, having counted 1085 people. [6] [7]"
For an article that is supposed to be about Star Trek as a whole, this seems obscure. Like talking about Obama, and having a whole section of the article about what is his favorite color. It fit in well in the Cultural influence of Star Trek page. Note that there are a lot of records Star Trek has broke. [1] A section about it, or even a paragraph would include multiple records that the franchise as earned. Oldag07 ( talk) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some inconsistancy in how the last two feature films are catagorized. The chart at the start of the 'Production History' section they are titled 'Alternate Reality film series': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Production_history. Yet further down the part of that section discussing these films is titled 'Reboot': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Reboot. However, the chart in the 'Film Franchise' section they are called 'J.J. Abrams cast': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Feature_films. Then on the template at the bottom of the page they are called 'Alternate Reality' again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#External_links. Shouldn't they all be titled the same so as not to cause confusion by readers?
To that end, I propose that all be titled 'Reboot', including the template. First, 'Alternate Reality' is an in-universe description that is inconsistant with how other parts in the Star Trek franchise are titled. 'The Original Series' is not titled 'Original Timeline: Captain Kirk Era'. It is titled 'The Original Series'. Same is true of the 'The Animated Series', 'The Next Generation', etc. Second, WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here. Most refer to the 2009 film as a reboot. Thus, it makes sense to call it a reboot here too. It is also consistant with how other franchises that have had reboots are titled on Wikipedia such as Planet of the Apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_of_the_Apes.
I'd like to hear the thoughts of other editors on this. SonOfThornhill ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally it is accepted that the new films are 'Alternate reality (I've changed the cast section on the table to reflect this as in any case 'JJ Cast' is erronious as they may make additional films without JJ's input but with the same cast). In regards to the reboot bit, the term is really only being used in the context that the series has been restarted which is true and therefore it is accurate to say it has been 'rebooted', however in the context of the series/ franchise as a whole 'Alternate Reality' is the correct term (and for the record 'Original Kirk Era' and other similar phrases are being used to differentiate between the two in both official and unofficial capacities). --
81.145.47.66 (
talk)
13:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
'Alternate Reality' is used on the official sites and by the majority of the fandom, not to mention on both film's wiki pages and on the Memory Alpha and Beta wikis. As I stated it's all about the context and the 'reboot' term is used by general film and sci-fi websites and sources when discussing them. I've also changed the cast definition back, as I previously stated 'JJ cast' is untenable as it become inaccurate possibly as soon as the next film due to JJ's other commitments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.47.66 ( talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:Real world applies here. In the context of the real-world production history, the new films are reboots. In the context of the fictional Star Trek universe, the events take place in an alternate reality. "Alternate reality" is appropriate for use in a plot summary where the context is the fictional world, but I would like to use "reboot" everywhere else (including the chart). Braincricket ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
201, I get what you're saying, and I'm not opposed to using the phrase alternate timeline series or whatever, but it seems like you're trying to purge the article of all uses of reboot. For example, I think the section header which was changed from "Reboot" to "The J.J. Abrams Films" sounds clumsy now. I prefer "Reboot" and I think we're justified in using that term. As for "accuracy of fact", the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and plenty of reliable sources refer to the new series as a reboot even though Leonard Nemoy is in them. Here's a search engine test using Google News:
search string | approx. hits |
---|---|
star trek "reboot" -wikipedia | 5500 |
star trek "alternate timeline" -wikipedia | 50 |
star trek "alternate reality" -wikipedia | 10 |
star trek "alternate universe" -wikipedia | 100 |
Sources for "reboot" include the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, MTV, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, USA Today, Fox News, etc. Braincricket ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is to use the "reboot" language, since that is main term used in the media, and from the reliable 3rd-party sources that we source our information. Wikipedia isn't a fan-website, but if there's a reliable, 3rd-party article (not from a fan website) about how fans use the term "alternate reality" instead of "reboot", then I've no problem with that being stated in the article somewhere. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a question, but isn't reboot means "telling the same story in a new way, to bring the idea back to life"? Sure, they want to bring the franchise back to life and some call it reboot, but as for movies itself it isn't reboot. Story start at distant future in "old universe/franchise" with Leonard Nimoy and then moves to "new changed reality", it can't be a reboot for a movie, if actor from old movie goes to new one and represent a role from , again, old one! I agree that these movies is a reboot for entire franchise, but when we talk about movies itself using reboot is completely wrong as it may confuse readers. And there is nothing to do with fans and wikias, this is wikipedia, and we have to use terms here correctly! So i suggest to use "reboot" only when talk about entire franchise, but for movies itself - "Alternate reality"/"Changed reality" or something else (new discussion)!
Vilnisr
T |
C
16:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
in my opinion this should be splited into "real Star Trek", or "old Star Trek" or "legacy Star Trek" and the new Version of Jar Jar Abrams. The inconsistency will be getting worse and worse. 5.147.168.4 ( talk) 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed Star Trek (franchise) in line with other similar articles. REVUpminster ( talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In heading Cultural impact it is stated that Plato's Stepchildren features the fist scripted interracial kiss. It should be specified that this was The first scripted interracial kiss between an African American and a Caucasian. Other interracial kisses had been scripted and aired between Caucasians and latinos or those of hispanic decent, and of Asian decent. [8] Danjgrau ( talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Thank you I will attempt to find more reliable sources.-- Danjgrau ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not yet a category and I think the first example that comes to most peoples minds would be Star Trek. I also think episodes that deal with Romulan cloaking device should either be invisibility in fiction or cloaking devices in fiction, depending on whether or not the light is actually being bent around or passing completely through an object. CensoredScribe ( talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Star Trek has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to add an entry under parodies about the IRS training video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exp6QNEamCE) and subsequent complaints.
Myrce ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is still locked i wanted to change the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_the_Voyages...#Reception_and_home_media_release but i cannot edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 ( talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)