![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Could I ask folks to take a look at the recent edits to " Disaster (Star Trek: The Next Generation)"? We have an IP editor adding what appears to me to be inappropriate material, though in good faith. While originally they only linked to a wiki, which had WP:SPS issues, they recently added this as a reference, which I believe is also inappropriate, but I also think the IP is starting to feel that I'm just being difficult. I've asked them to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page, but I'm sure they're feeling put upon at this point. Other editors weighing in would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
I posted this question on the Kirk page as well, but there might be more people watching here.
Would an image of Chris Pine as Kirk be possible (and a good idea) in this article per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (I see Spock has the newer Spock)? We could of course use one of the free Pine-images, but since the article is about the character, I´d like an image of the character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Star Trek, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated the episode " Barge of the Dead" for GAN. While there is not as much information out there on this episode in comparison to my previous work with "Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager), I believe that is a comprehensive overview of the episode. I would greatly appreciate anyone's help with the review. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated " Barge of the Dead" as a featured article candidate ( of the Dead/archive1&redirect=no here). Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 ( talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor has been changing the abbreviations in the {{ Star Trek abbreviations}} template. I have reverted it twice, but am wary of doing it again, so as not to violate the revert war policy. Can an editor take care of this? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) ( talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Teleporter ugh. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Where No Man Has Gone Before, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone at the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Deep_Space_Nine_(Star_Trek_series)...misrepresentation_of_Garak's_BIO-photo_identification thinks we have the wrong pic here, and I can't tell for sure. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I really hate to do this, but I feel I need to raise the question of whether the edits to Star Trek-related articles by Starspotter ( talk · contribs) are ultimately a net positive to this project.
Per the above thread, I just reverted many of their edits in which they added information about how a reviewer considered epsiodes to be "must-watch"...more than half of the episodes from DS9 and ENT, which ultimately rendered the "must-watch" desgination essentially meaningless as an indicator of significance. These edits were made very quickly, without edit summaries, and presumably without consulting with this project (or anyone else) first. In their defense, they haven't edited for the past two weeks, so they may not have been aware of the discussion, but I question whether there should have been a need for that discussion to begin with.
Since the beginning of this year they've multiple warnings regarding their edits to Star Trek-related articles, including canvassing with regards to an AFD.
I have concerns about many of their other edits, primarily regarding the reception of episodes, but I simply don't have the bandwidth to review all of it.
While Starspotter has made many contributions to Star Trek-related articles that are likely beyond reproach and that have improved the quality of said articles, I'm nevertheless left wondering how long it will be before they next make problematic edits that it falls to other members of this community to discuss and potentially clean-up.
@
Starspotter: I'd love to get a response from you on this to the effect that you understand the concerns I've established here and that you will a) be more careful to provide edit summaries (which you have also been advised about in the past) and b) will consult this project proactively before making large-scale edits to multiple articles. If you're unwilling to agree to these two requests, I would feel forced to ask whether a
topic ban might be appropriate to prevent further disruption. I don't feel that these are significant asks, but if you do, I'm happy to discuss further. I hope it's understandable that it's uncomfortable when your evidently well-intentioned edits nevertheless place other editors in the role of needing to either ask you to self-revert or take on the task of unwinding your edits themselves.
Thank you for your thoughts on this. DonIago ( talk) 04:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Just want to let those interested know that Class M planet is nominated for deletion and discussed here. Daranios ( talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking that with the 20th anniversary of Enterprise coming up in September it might be nice to get a " Did you know" entry to highlight it and I'd like to run it past editors interested in Star Trek before proposing it. Here's a rough draft of what I was thinking of suggesting:
Did you know: The opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise used the U2 song Beautiful Day as a temp track before the song Faith of the Heart was chosen. The series premiered September 26, 2001.
The website of Montgomery and Co, the company that created the title credits, contains a video of the credits including the U2 song. [9] Archive Copy (which does include a working copy of the video) Brannon Braga also mentioned this on the Bluray commentary. [10]
This is something I didn't know until recently and I added it to the article Star Trek: Enterprise. I think it is interesting and a little controversial because people love to hate that theme song. I don't know if there is another better way to sneak in the secondary message that Enterprise turns 20 this September.
Thanks. -- 109.79.161.25 ( talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Slipstream (science fiction) is nominated for deletion and discussed here. The article currently contains material about the faster-than-light travel methods of that name appearing in Voyager and Discovery. Daranios ( talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Should we add or mention the reaction by Paramount in the fan series and movies (Star Trek Continues managed to finish before the crackdown, but Axanar was aborted because of it) respective articles?
Rbanffy (
talk)
18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
For many years Keith DeCandido has been rewatching and writing reviews of Star Trek for Tor.com. He's also the author several Star Trek books. His reviews are thorough and are often a useful reliable source of production details that is a lot easier to reference than a big old book. Most of you probably already know this, but I say it in case any less experienced editors might be reading and consider getting more involved in editing Star Trek articles.
DeCandido recently (October 2021) finished reviewing Voyager season 7, [11] so there are already whole lot of quality reviews that can be added to Star Trek Voyager episode articles (and all of DS9 and TNG too). My humble suggestion is that this might be a way for newer editors to get started with the WikiProject Star Trek, as adding these reviews is an obvious improvement to most articles. (Note: if it is already {{ Featured article}} or {{ Good Article}} quality then editors might want to discuss on the Talk page first.) On a per episode level it is a small task, to start by referencing the review for at least one thing, the review itself or some production detail. On a project level as a whole it is much bigger task to try and see the reviews added to every article, and The A.V. Club is another source of quality reviews too. (Some editors may dislike the homogenous approach but I've never had any qualms about consistently adding quality sources, the equivalent in film articles was always to add reviews by critic Roger Ebert, an early adaptor when it came to publishing his reviews online.) I suggest it instead of doing it myself because the task is huge, and also I prefer not to edit Voyager episode articles, although occasionally I end up doing so despite myself.
DeCandido has promised an "Enterprise Rewatch, which will kick off in November." [12] I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's been 20 years since Enterprise premiered, "oh boy". I will probably add those to the Enterprise articles as they come out, but who knows what could happen. -- 109.77.207.153 ( talk) 07:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
site:tor.com
along with the name of the episode you are searching for. DeCandido also writes a season overview article after having reviewed each season and those articles link to most of the episodes, and he usually remarks on the best and the worst of the season. For example here are links to each of the Voyager season overview articles: Overview
Season 1,
Season 2,
Season 3,
Season 4,
Season 5,
Season 6,
Season 7. If this is already obvious to you that's fine, maybe you would suggest it to someone else you know who you think might be interested in trying to edit some Project Star Trek articles for a change. I'm writing this on the premise that there are always far more readers than there are active editors, and that maybe some of those readers might be encouraged to pick an episode article and start trying to improve it. It's a longshot I know, but no harm in trying. We all had to start somewhere. --
109.77.207.153 (
talk)
11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Please note that user
User:Sundayclose is removing references from various Star Trek episode articles.
[13]
Deleting references seems counter-productive, whatever point about citation style Sundayclose is trying to make.
See also:
[14] Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode)
[15] The Passenger (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
[16] The Nagus
[17] Vortex (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
etc...
contribs list at offset for 2021-11-08
I thought I was more-or-less following the example of existing Star Trek articles. (For example
Past Prologue lists several books after the other references.) I know I could use the simpler more common referencing style but that gets messy when repeatedly referencing individual pages from the same book over and over. I do not want to
argue about reference style. I am going to pause until it becomes a bit clearer how the people of Project Star Trek would prefer repeated references to the same book to be done. --
109.79.178.97 (
talk)
00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
(beginning of previous comments)
This article contained a footnote referring a book called the Nitpickers guide. This was not an inline reference so it was not entirely clear where in the article this book reference was being used. It is not the most common reference style but many of the Star Trek episode articles use this style of reference and I've seen it in a few other places too. It is a bit more complicated and I might not be getting it exactly right but it seems like a good way to reference books, especially when many different pages are being referenced.
Sidenote: It was not clear why The Nitpickers Guide was added in the first place[1](way back in 2007) but it doesn't seem to have been added to support anything specific. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I added a reference to another book The Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann). The reference was to Google books which includes extensive previews. The previews include several pages of that book that are relevant to the production of this episode. I added the book reference but I did not immediately add production details for this episode. An editor unfamiliar with this style of reference deleted both book references. I restored the references and then made use of the book reference to start the Production section. The editor again deleted both of the book references,[2] apparently not having seen that the book reference was now needed by the production section. If editors feel it is necessary to discuss the citation style and use another style WP:STYLEVAR then it would be helpful if they lead by example and reformat the references in the way they think is more appropriate but deleting the references entirely does not improve the article.
Please restore the book references[3]. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:STYLEVAR does not support your argument; in fact, it opposes it: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". You do not have a substantial reason to change the style that is already well established in the article just because you like it. Read WP:MOS and WP:CITE. You need to use the style consistent with the way the article is already written, regardless of what's in other articles. Styles can differ across articles, but not within articles. In this case, if you want a reference in List of References, cite it in the article and it will appear in the list of references. If you simply want a link to the websites (and if there is a good reason to do so), it can go in the External Links section. It's not a matter of me being "unfamiliar" with anything; it's following Wikipedia's style. So, no, I will not restore your inappropriate edits. You clearly have not read the links I have provided. It is your responsibility to read and abide by them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:V. The book reference is needed to support the Production section. If you want to done in a particular way it is not clear how deleting the book references helps achieve that end. I point to WP:STYLEVAR not to support an argument but because I do not want to argue about styles all. This article already included one book reference and I thought I was following the existing style. (See also Past Prologue which includes a list of books after the references.) -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
You are not following the existing style for this article. Another article may not use the same style, and in fact Past Prologue uses a different style. What is it that you don't understand about: You can't mix styles within the same article? I don't think I can state this any more clearly: If you cite the source in the article properly, the citation will show up in the Reference List. Is the problem here that you don't know how to cite, or is it that you don't want to cite? If you don't know how to cite, AGAIN, read WP:CITE. If you need more detailed help, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come along to help. But don't ask for help if you're expecting someone to tell you that you can mix styles within the same article. It's pointless and a waste of time to complain about how you can't do it the way you want to, or someone reverted your edits, or other articles do it the way you want it, or you haven't taken a few minutes to actually read WP:CITE. If you ask for help, ask how to cite a source so that it is placed in the Reference List.
If the problem is simply that you don't want to cite and don't care about Wikipedia's rules of writing style, then this is not the place for you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
(end of previous comments)
Deleting references. Styling references. I'm talking in one direction, Sundayclose is talking in a different direction. The guidelines
WP:MOS and
WP:CITE are long and talk about many different things, but the part of
WP:CITE that seems relevant here is
WP:CITESHORT, which resembles the existing formatting I was trying to follow for book references.
User:David Fuchs several articles included unattached references to "The Nitpickers Guide" (they all seem to have been added in 2007 and as a general reference not to cover any specific facts), and deleting those is somewhat understandable. But in an article like
Move Along Home where I used a refence to the book "The Deep Space Nine Companion" to start the Production section
[18] it is not clear why someone would delete the reference to that book, leaving the shortlinks "Edrmann and Block (2000)" without the corresponding long full book reference. --
109.79.169.117 (
talk)
11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This week's Star Trek Prodigy episode caused Kobayashi Maru to ping on my watchlist, and I've looked at it for the first time in forever. It is in poor form and I've dropped a request for contributors to chime in on whether I'm alone in that belief; please consider chiming in. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about the growing amount of production notes in articles. Not only are they borderline trivia, I'm concerned that they may be getting copied from source material. I don't own the sources quoted, so I can't check on this. For example, the production area of Return of the Archons reads like a trivia who's who for this episode, and the way it is written does not look like a paraphrase. Can anyone owning this source material check? And what are people's feelings on this seemingly pile-on of trivia in the articles? StarHOG ( Talk) 04:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's dead: Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/changes — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As you may be aware, for many years Keith R. A. DeCandido has been rewatching and reviewing episodes of Star Trek for Tor.com ( Tor Books is part of Macmillan publishing). He was an author of several Star Trek books, I believe he is a very reliable source, a reference to his reviews would be an improvement to any Star Trek episode article on Wikipedia. Improving Star Trek Enterprise episode articles is something I have been trying to doing for a while now. DeCandido has reached the end of his reviews of season 1 and I am also going to take this moment as an opportunity to briefly reassess the quality of the Wikipedia Star Trek episode articles for Enterprise season 1. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my estimation of the quality of these articles, but maybe I'm not being strict enough, so I am also broadly asking the question to other editors if I'm on the right track. Do you think my assessment is about right? Am I overrating the articles or underrating them? (The season 4 episode article Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise) is rated as a {{ Good article}} but seems overrated to me because the details are a little thin, but maybe I'm being overly critical.) In short in think most episode articles for season 1 are approximately C-class at least. The quality of some may arguably be higher, ( Dear Doctor and Acquisition (Star Trek: Enterprise) were already rated as good articles), maybe the article for The Andorian Incident should be rated as B class. Maybe the article Two Days and Two Nights, is on the lower end of C class quality (it has references and coverage so I think it just barely scrapes into C class). There are a two episode articles that could potentially go into much greater depth. It is difficult to know with the premiere episode for example Broken Bow how much detail can and should be included there rather than in the articles for the whole series or the article for season 1 but I do not think there is too much information there yet. There was a behind the scenes documentary of the episode Vox Sola so I think that episode has more potential for expansion than most. I think many of the episode articles would benefit from including a single non-free image to "significantly increase readers' understanding". (Reusing one of the low resolution images previously released by Paramount for publicity purposes [20] might help meet some of the requirements.) That is not a ball of yarn I want to untangle myself, but another editor might see it as an interesting opportunity.
So again, do you think this assessment of the quality of the Enterprise season 1 articles is about right? If I've underestimated or overestimated the quality I'd appreciate if editors would take this as an opportunity to comment, provide feedback, and perhaps suggest potential improvements that might be needed or minor rough edges that could be smoothed off to further increase the article quality. -- 109.79.170.138 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Does this meet Wikipedia:Notability: Starship Excelsior? -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please join a discussion of which of two fair-use images should be used as the lead at Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)#Lead image. Thanks. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Can i join the project or can someone add me in the project? First Officer Commander Chakotay ( talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Could I ask folks to take a look at the recent edits to " Disaster (Star Trek: The Next Generation)"? We have an IP editor adding what appears to me to be inappropriate material, though in good faith. While originally they only linked to a wiki, which had WP:SPS issues, they recently added this as a reference, which I believe is also inappropriate, but I also think the IP is starting to feel that I'm just being difficult. I've asked them to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page, but I'm sure they're feeling put upon at this point. Other editors weighing in would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
I posted this question on the Kirk page as well, but there might be more people watching here.
Would an image of Chris Pine as Kirk be possible (and a good idea) in this article per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (I see Spock has the newer Spock)? We could of course use one of the free Pine-images, but since the article is about the character, I´d like an image of the character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Star Trek, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated the episode " Barge of the Dead" for GAN. While there is not as much information out there on this episode in comparison to my previous work with "Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager), I believe that is a comprehensive overview of the episode. I would greatly appreciate anyone's help with the review. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated " Barge of the Dead" as a featured article candidate ( of the Dead/archive1&redirect=no here). Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 ( talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor has been changing the abbreviations in the {{ Star Trek abbreviations}} template. I have reverted it twice, but am wary of doing it again, so as not to violate the revert war policy. Can an editor take care of this? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) ( talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Teleporter ugh. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Where No Man Has Gone Before, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone at the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Deep_Space_Nine_(Star_Trek_series)...misrepresentation_of_Garak's_BIO-photo_identification thinks we have the wrong pic here, and I can't tell for sure. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I really hate to do this, but I feel I need to raise the question of whether the edits to Star Trek-related articles by Starspotter ( talk · contribs) are ultimately a net positive to this project.
Per the above thread, I just reverted many of their edits in which they added information about how a reviewer considered epsiodes to be "must-watch"...more than half of the episodes from DS9 and ENT, which ultimately rendered the "must-watch" desgination essentially meaningless as an indicator of significance. These edits were made very quickly, without edit summaries, and presumably without consulting with this project (or anyone else) first. In their defense, they haven't edited for the past two weeks, so they may not have been aware of the discussion, but I question whether there should have been a need for that discussion to begin with.
Since the beginning of this year they've multiple warnings regarding their edits to Star Trek-related articles, including canvassing with regards to an AFD.
I have concerns about many of their other edits, primarily regarding the reception of episodes, but I simply don't have the bandwidth to review all of it.
While Starspotter has made many contributions to Star Trek-related articles that are likely beyond reproach and that have improved the quality of said articles, I'm nevertheless left wondering how long it will be before they next make problematic edits that it falls to other members of this community to discuss and potentially clean-up.
@
Starspotter: I'd love to get a response from you on this to the effect that you understand the concerns I've established here and that you will a) be more careful to provide edit summaries (which you have also been advised about in the past) and b) will consult this project proactively before making large-scale edits to multiple articles. If you're unwilling to agree to these two requests, I would feel forced to ask whether a
topic ban might be appropriate to prevent further disruption. I don't feel that these are significant asks, but if you do, I'm happy to discuss further. I hope it's understandable that it's uncomfortable when your evidently well-intentioned edits nevertheless place other editors in the role of needing to either ask you to self-revert or take on the task of unwinding your edits themselves.
Thank you for your thoughts on this. DonIago ( talk) 04:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Just want to let those interested know that Class M planet is nominated for deletion and discussed here. Daranios ( talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking that with the 20th anniversary of Enterprise coming up in September it might be nice to get a " Did you know" entry to highlight it and I'd like to run it past editors interested in Star Trek before proposing it. Here's a rough draft of what I was thinking of suggesting:
Did you know: The opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise used the U2 song Beautiful Day as a temp track before the song Faith of the Heart was chosen. The series premiered September 26, 2001.
The website of Montgomery and Co, the company that created the title credits, contains a video of the credits including the U2 song. [9] Archive Copy (which does include a working copy of the video) Brannon Braga also mentioned this on the Bluray commentary. [10]
This is something I didn't know until recently and I added it to the article Star Trek: Enterprise. I think it is interesting and a little controversial because people love to hate that theme song. I don't know if there is another better way to sneak in the secondary message that Enterprise turns 20 this September.
Thanks. -- 109.79.161.25 ( talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Slipstream (science fiction) is nominated for deletion and discussed here. The article currently contains material about the faster-than-light travel methods of that name appearing in Voyager and Discovery. Daranios ( talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Should we add or mention the reaction by Paramount in the fan series and movies (Star Trek Continues managed to finish before the crackdown, but Axanar was aborted because of it) respective articles?
Rbanffy (
talk)
18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
For many years Keith DeCandido has been rewatching and writing reviews of Star Trek for Tor.com. He's also the author several Star Trek books. His reviews are thorough and are often a useful reliable source of production details that is a lot easier to reference than a big old book. Most of you probably already know this, but I say it in case any less experienced editors might be reading and consider getting more involved in editing Star Trek articles.
DeCandido recently (October 2021) finished reviewing Voyager season 7, [11] so there are already whole lot of quality reviews that can be added to Star Trek Voyager episode articles (and all of DS9 and TNG too). My humble suggestion is that this might be a way for newer editors to get started with the WikiProject Star Trek, as adding these reviews is an obvious improvement to most articles. (Note: if it is already {{ Featured article}} or {{ Good Article}} quality then editors might want to discuss on the Talk page first.) On a per episode level it is a small task, to start by referencing the review for at least one thing, the review itself or some production detail. On a project level as a whole it is much bigger task to try and see the reviews added to every article, and The A.V. Club is another source of quality reviews too. (Some editors may dislike the homogenous approach but I've never had any qualms about consistently adding quality sources, the equivalent in film articles was always to add reviews by critic Roger Ebert, an early adaptor when it came to publishing his reviews online.) I suggest it instead of doing it myself because the task is huge, and also I prefer not to edit Voyager episode articles, although occasionally I end up doing so despite myself.
DeCandido has promised an "Enterprise Rewatch, which will kick off in November." [12] I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's been 20 years since Enterprise premiered, "oh boy". I will probably add those to the Enterprise articles as they come out, but who knows what could happen. -- 109.77.207.153 ( talk) 07:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
site:tor.com
along with the name of the episode you are searching for. DeCandido also writes a season overview article after having reviewed each season and those articles link to most of the episodes, and he usually remarks on the best and the worst of the season. For example here are links to each of the Voyager season overview articles: Overview
Season 1,
Season 2,
Season 3,
Season 4,
Season 5,
Season 6,
Season 7. If this is already obvious to you that's fine, maybe you would suggest it to someone else you know who you think might be interested in trying to edit some Project Star Trek articles for a change. I'm writing this on the premise that there are always far more readers than there are active editors, and that maybe some of those readers might be encouraged to pick an episode article and start trying to improve it. It's a longshot I know, but no harm in trying. We all had to start somewhere. --
109.77.207.153 (
talk)
11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Please note that user
User:Sundayclose is removing references from various Star Trek episode articles.
[13]
Deleting references seems counter-productive, whatever point about citation style Sundayclose is trying to make.
See also:
[14] Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode)
[15] The Passenger (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
[16] The Nagus
[17] Vortex (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
etc...
contribs list at offset for 2021-11-08
I thought I was more-or-less following the example of existing Star Trek articles. (For example
Past Prologue lists several books after the other references.) I know I could use the simpler more common referencing style but that gets messy when repeatedly referencing individual pages from the same book over and over. I do not want to
argue about reference style. I am going to pause until it becomes a bit clearer how the people of Project Star Trek would prefer repeated references to the same book to be done. --
109.79.178.97 (
talk)
00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
(beginning of previous comments)
This article contained a footnote referring a book called the Nitpickers guide. This was not an inline reference so it was not entirely clear where in the article this book reference was being used. It is not the most common reference style but many of the Star Trek episode articles use this style of reference and I've seen it in a few other places too. It is a bit more complicated and I might not be getting it exactly right but it seems like a good way to reference books, especially when many different pages are being referenced.
Sidenote: It was not clear why The Nitpickers Guide was added in the first place[1](way back in 2007) but it doesn't seem to have been added to support anything specific. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I added a reference to another book The Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann). The reference was to Google books which includes extensive previews. The previews include several pages of that book that are relevant to the production of this episode. I added the book reference but I did not immediately add production details for this episode. An editor unfamiliar with this style of reference deleted both book references. I restored the references and then made use of the book reference to start the Production section. The editor again deleted both of the book references,[2] apparently not having seen that the book reference was now needed by the production section. If editors feel it is necessary to discuss the citation style and use another style WP:STYLEVAR then it would be helpful if they lead by example and reformat the references in the way they think is more appropriate but deleting the references entirely does not improve the article.
Please restore the book references[3]. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:STYLEVAR does not support your argument; in fact, it opposes it: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". You do not have a substantial reason to change the style that is already well established in the article just because you like it. Read WP:MOS and WP:CITE. You need to use the style consistent with the way the article is already written, regardless of what's in other articles. Styles can differ across articles, but not within articles. In this case, if you want a reference in List of References, cite it in the article and it will appear in the list of references. If you simply want a link to the websites (and if there is a good reason to do so), it can go in the External Links section. It's not a matter of me being "unfamiliar" with anything; it's following Wikipedia's style. So, no, I will not restore your inappropriate edits. You clearly have not read the links I have provided. It is your responsibility to read and abide by them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:V. The book reference is needed to support the Production section. If you want to done in a particular way it is not clear how deleting the book references helps achieve that end. I point to WP:STYLEVAR not to support an argument but because I do not want to argue about styles all. This article already included one book reference and I thought I was following the existing style. (See also Past Prologue which includes a list of books after the references.) -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
You are not following the existing style for this article. Another article may not use the same style, and in fact Past Prologue uses a different style. What is it that you don't understand about: You can't mix styles within the same article? I don't think I can state this any more clearly: If you cite the source in the article properly, the citation will show up in the Reference List. Is the problem here that you don't know how to cite, or is it that you don't want to cite? If you don't know how to cite, AGAIN, read WP:CITE. If you need more detailed help, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come along to help. But don't ask for help if you're expecting someone to tell you that you can mix styles within the same article. It's pointless and a waste of time to complain about how you can't do it the way you want to, or someone reverted your edits, or other articles do it the way you want it, or you haven't taken a few minutes to actually read WP:CITE. If you ask for help, ask how to cite a source so that it is placed in the Reference List.
If the problem is simply that you don't want to cite and don't care about Wikipedia's rules of writing style, then this is not the place for you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
(end of previous comments)
Deleting references. Styling references. I'm talking in one direction, Sundayclose is talking in a different direction. The guidelines
WP:MOS and
WP:CITE are long and talk about many different things, but the part of
WP:CITE that seems relevant here is
WP:CITESHORT, which resembles the existing formatting I was trying to follow for book references.
User:David Fuchs several articles included unattached references to "The Nitpickers Guide" (they all seem to have been added in 2007 and as a general reference not to cover any specific facts), and deleting those is somewhat understandable. But in an article like
Move Along Home where I used a refence to the book "The Deep Space Nine Companion" to start the Production section
[18] it is not clear why someone would delete the reference to that book, leaving the shortlinks "Edrmann and Block (2000)" without the corresponding long full book reference. --
109.79.169.117 (
talk)
11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This week's Star Trek Prodigy episode caused Kobayashi Maru to ping on my watchlist, and I've looked at it for the first time in forever. It is in poor form and I've dropped a request for contributors to chime in on whether I'm alone in that belief; please consider chiming in. -- EEMIV ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about the growing amount of production notes in articles. Not only are they borderline trivia, I'm concerned that they may be getting copied from source material. I don't own the sources quoted, so I can't check on this. For example, the production area of Return of the Archons reads like a trivia who's who for this episode, and the way it is written does not look like a paraphrase. Can anyone owning this source material check? And what are people's feelings on this seemingly pile-on of trivia in the articles? StarHOG ( Talk) 04:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's dead: Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/changes — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As you may be aware, for many years Keith R. A. DeCandido has been rewatching and reviewing episodes of Star Trek for Tor.com ( Tor Books is part of Macmillan publishing). He was an author of several Star Trek books, I believe he is a very reliable source, a reference to his reviews would be an improvement to any Star Trek episode article on Wikipedia. Improving Star Trek Enterprise episode articles is something I have been trying to doing for a while now. DeCandido has reached the end of his reviews of season 1 and I am also going to take this moment as an opportunity to briefly reassess the quality of the Wikipedia Star Trek episode articles for Enterprise season 1. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my estimation of the quality of these articles, but maybe I'm not being strict enough, so I am also broadly asking the question to other editors if I'm on the right track. Do you think my assessment is about right? Am I overrating the articles or underrating them? (The season 4 episode article Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise) is rated as a {{ Good article}} but seems overrated to me because the details are a little thin, but maybe I'm being overly critical.) In short in think most episode articles for season 1 are approximately C-class at least. The quality of some may arguably be higher, ( Dear Doctor and Acquisition (Star Trek: Enterprise) were already rated as good articles), maybe the article for The Andorian Incident should be rated as B class. Maybe the article Two Days and Two Nights, is on the lower end of C class quality (it has references and coverage so I think it just barely scrapes into C class). There are a two episode articles that could potentially go into much greater depth. It is difficult to know with the premiere episode for example Broken Bow how much detail can and should be included there rather than in the articles for the whole series or the article for season 1 but I do not think there is too much information there yet. There was a behind the scenes documentary of the episode Vox Sola so I think that episode has more potential for expansion than most. I think many of the episode articles would benefit from including a single non-free image to "significantly increase readers' understanding". (Reusing one of the low resolution images previously released by Paramount for publicity purposes [20] might help meet some of the requirements.) That is not a ball of yarn I want to untangle myself, but another editor might see it as an interesting opportunity.
So again, do you think this assessment of the quality of the Enterprise season 1 articles is about right? If I've underestimated or overestimated the quality I'd appreciate if editors would take this as an opportunity to comment, provide feedback, and perhaps suggest potential improvements that might be needed or minor rough edges that could be smoothed off to further increase the article quality. -- 109.79.170.138 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Does this meet Wikipedia:Notability: Starship Excelsior? -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please join a discussion of which of two fair-use images should be used as the lead at Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)#Lead image. Thanks. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Can i join the project or can someone add me in the project? First Officer Commander Chakotay ( talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)