Wikipedia

Talk:James T. Kirk/Archive 3

< Talk:James T. Kirk
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Bronxpolwatcher in topic Should Miramanee be listed as Kirk's wife?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Kirk the newer

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Provided it meets NFCC, certainly. I'm not sure that Spock image meets NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe this is a fine idea, there are two different portrayals, the same WP:FUR that allows using the Shatner publicity image should suffice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Beeblebrox Currently discussed at [1]. And I just thought of a third, the animated one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I came here after seeing that discussion, makes more sense to discuss here, probably. The animated one is a stretch, it's still Shatner, just in drawing form. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It´s significantly more "meh", sure. I was inspired by the Aragorn article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James T. Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James T. Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James T. Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James T. Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For my own curiosity, is the information in the infobox for the original star trek timeline or the reboot, or is it both? If so then it may be a good idea to insert a note somewhere to that effect so we can tell which ranks and commands belong to which version of the character. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Behavior concerning personal ownership of this article

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

User:The Optimistic One : Why are you reverting edits made in good faith (WP:AGF) by Rdzogschen? Your reasoning that his clean-up of the Infobox text (rendering it readable for novices!) as unnecessary and "does not improve the article", is extremely flimsy. I feel the repeated reversions, and other edits you’ve made to this article, indicate you experience extreme emotional ownership of the content. To be specific: you are acting as the sole arbiter of what is notable—worthy of inclusion—or what can be changed. Wikipedia is about consensus and collaboration, etc. My recommendation is to revert the Infobox to Rdzogchen’s version, and to do our best to welcome others to make likewise improvements, in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:95 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the defense, but I doubt the editor in question will permit changes/improvements, etc. Thanks. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I took a look and I feel the "improvements" are inconsistent with other Star Trek character's article infoboxes. If these really are improvements (to me, they look like a different way of presenting almost the same data), then I would suggest that Rdzogschen launch an effort to change ALL the infoboxes on the characters, to maintain consistency. I'm a big believer in uniformity for these articles. As for the sub-headings, I re-added Rdzogschen's use of ==== for the sub-headers as it does seem to conform to how it looks on Spock's page. I did not consult the manual of style to see if it had direction on these sub-headers, but it is the way it was done on Spock. On a side note, there are obviously many editors on wikipedia that love Trek and many of us watch these articles, it is not polite to call out any of us for "taking ownership" of a particular article, unless you really feel an admin needs to get involved. I don't see that here. I think we can have a healthy discussion on what these articles should look like without becoming uncivil towards each other. StarHOG (Talk) 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The Infobox has too much! information squeezed into a small space, and is difficult to read without context. However, I understand the desire to squeeze as much information as possible into one line of text. As per the "unnecessary parameters", they are defined quite clearly in the template's documentation. Launch an effort to change ALL Trek character Infoboxes… Given what madness my suggestions have wrought on this humble article, eh? Rdzogschen (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that may have sounded sarcastic because of the ridiculous amount of work it would entail. But, if you feel strongly about it...isn't there a template to be used for all star trek characters in the wikiproject: star trek area? I assume you could look there and propose changes to that template, then maybe people would slowly get them changed. I've been editing every single TOS episode to bring them into uniformity and I'm in season 3 now. It is a long road sometimes when you want to see change. StarHOG (Talk) 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The Trek-specific parameters you've hinted at were merged with Template:Infobox character ages ago as generic parameters: first_major, first_minor, first_date, last_major, last_minor, last_date, creator, origin/born, and lbl/data parameter pairs. The exact parameters which were reverted as "unnecessary" and which "look like a different way of presenting almost the same data." Rdzogschen (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sandra Smith

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Sandra Smith plays Captain Kirk (or at least his consciousness) in the episode Turnabout Intruder. This seems inclusion-worthy in some way, albeit as a minor note. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd lean toward leaving it out of the infobox. My main reason is that, from a production point of view, one would look at the credits (she's not credited as playing Kirk, at least not in the IMDB, and probably not in the actual show credits). Note that stunt doubles are also not listed. From a story point of view, while one might say she "played" Kirk, one could also say she was playing Janice Lester "possessed" by Kirk's consciousness. Note also that Shatner's credits don't include playing Janice Lester. StarHOG, in the 3 Sept. edit history, also questions this inclusion. -- HLachman (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree SonOfThornhill (talk)
Agreed. I don't think one-offs like this warrant credit as having "played" Kirk.StarHOG (Talk) 17:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Edited for reasons stated above. -- HLachman (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Should Miramanee be listed as Kirk's wife?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the third-season episode, "The Paradise Syndrome," Kirk, though suffering from amnesia, marries Miramanee, the priestess, in a tribal ceremony. She becomes pregnant, but at the end of the episode, she and her unborn child die after the villagers try to stone Kirk to death (but mortally wound her).

Even when he regains his memory, Kirk still loves her and mourns her passing.

How come Miramanee never been listed as Kirk's wife? Shouldn't be added to the family section?

Shouldn't the unnamed unborn child be listed under children?

The episode IS canon

Thoughts? Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_T._Kirk/Archive_3&oldid=1222066598"