Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

saucer sep

Given the overlap of saucer separation, saucer section and stardrive section, it would make sense to consider merging them : they all seem to basically contain overlapping information about saucer separation, and it's hard really to imagine how to restructure them otherwise. Even a saucer landing seems tied in with the concept of saucer separation. Any thoughts? I note quite a lot of the stuff here is original research, anyway. Morwen - Talk 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorable quotes sections = non-npov?

Anyone else think these are a little gratuitous or, at best, arbitrary? Is there a way to cite these assorted quotes as "memorable"? --EEMeltonIV 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes actually belong at Wikiquote :-)! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Source for tech info needed

Over at Space warfare in fiction there's a short paragraph on the major weapons used in space combat in Star Trek. But there's no sources for it. I'm sure somebody must have a reliable reference we can use for this information...? JulesH 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek race template

I have a modified version of the {{Star Trek race}} template at my sandbox. I have added a field for the Emblem of each race so that they would be displayed on white background as opposed to the coloured background in the current template. If you agree that it loos better on a white background them it can be implemented on the live template.--NeilEvans 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the emblem parameter.--NeilEvans 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete redundant navigation templates?

Considering that Template:ST episode contains the same information in a less-obtrusive way, can we can go ahead and delete

• Template:TNG navigation
• Template:DS9 navigation
• Template:ENT navigation
• Template:VOY navigation

once all the episode articles have the ST episode template smacked onto 'em?

Additionally, while I appreciate that the various TOS navigation templates -- Template:TOS Navigation (Season 1), Template:TOS Navigation (Season 2) and Template:TOS Navigation (Season 3) -- offer additional information (specifically, both broadcast and production order), does production order strike anyone as a means by which (m)any casual Wikipedia users will navigate through episodes? --EEMeltonIV 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question, many ST fans would be interested in production order, and it is more than reasonable to assume that many know about Wikipedia. That said, I would say it would be better to incorporate production next/previous as an optional parameter of the infobox. Koweja 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Voyager episodes have been cleaned out and VOY navigation is up for deletion at TFD - Koweja 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:TNG navigation is done and nominated for TFD as well. Koweja 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like ENT episodes don't have an infobox yet, but once they do Template:ENT navigation can go as well. Koweja 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, or even out to lunch, but personally I'd rather see the link at the bottom of the Trek episode pages link into the very beautiful "List of Star Trek: The xxx episodes" rather than the flat and uninspiring "Category:Star Trek: xxxx episodes". Also Re: the new StarTrek.com link template, I would prefer seeing the actual name of the episode being linked to, the same as all (or most of) our other Wiki links look, with the episode name in quotes per Wiki standards. 63.215.122.7 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the template so it now shows the page name instead of "episode name". As for the navigation the problem is that the templates are unnecessary due to the infobox. It contains a link to the episode list - just click "episode chronology". Koweja 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Koweja, looks good, thank you, appreciate the clarification re: "episode chronology". Great job! Wikidenizen 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To Create: Vulcan Language

I'd like to start working on this area, but I wanted confirmation on structure. I'm guessing it should consist of Vulcan words used in the many series and movies (with a separate non-canon section for the novels, of course). However, very few of the words are directly defined within episodes or movies. How should I go about indicating the differences among:

the term Ponn Farr, which is directly defined in the episode Amok Time

the suffix -kam, which is introduced in TWOK and seems to have an affectionate/dimunitive purpose like the Japanese -chan, but is never directly defined

the term Ko N'ya, which is translated as "Devil's Heart" in the TNG novel The Devil's Heart but is never menitoned in the series at all?

I'm new to Wiki and don't know much about the rules, so if someone could either give me instruction or direct me to a link, I'll start adding to the project. Thanks.SkepticalGal 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Welcome to Wiki and also to the Star Trek project, maybe you can use the Klingon language page as a starting point as to how to structure the article.--NeilEvans 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that nothing outside of TV Star Trek is canon, so you can't really draw on Vulcan in any novel. Besides, Vulcan isn't a language in the sense that the Klingon language is, with a proper structure and rules Alastairward 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can mention non-canonical material, as long as it's referenced, non-trivial etc (so you can't use blogs or message boards as refs). Vulcan may not be an established language but there may be references to it in "making of" books & documentaries, interviews with directors and writers etc. Totnesmartin 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Romulan "Bird Of Prey"

I'd like to bring this subject up again, as I believe it to be significant. Why precisely are we referring to the Romulan ships of TOS and ENT as "Birds of Prey?" They were never identified by that name on either of those shows and Paramount (the owners and operators of the Star Trek franchise and mythos) does not recognize that name for that ship. The term is conjectural and is used by fandom. Some months ago, I did mention this when I added this fact into the trivia section of the Romulan starships article, but I believe it is important to at least consider puting that data into the sections pertaining to the ships themselves, as it will make Wikipedia appear even more objective and impartial toward Star Trek. Darin Wagner 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spock article hijacked

Sorry if this ain't the right place to mention it, but the Spock article seems to have been hijacked on March 21st 2007. So if anyone could correct that it would be nice.Thanks. ( Chris ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.219.126.28 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Move request: Star Trek XI or Star Trek (film)?

A move request has recently been filed concerning the title of the film due for release in December 2008. Please discuss at Talk:Star Trek (film). --Stemonitis 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Where No One Has Gone Before move

I have put this up for WP:RM. See Talk:Where No One Has Gone Before#Requested move. Simply south 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant project?

I'm guessing all of you are familiar with Memory Alpha (and Memory Beta for the non-canon stuff), so I really don't see the point in this whole project, when everything that is on here or planned to be on here has already been done elsewhere. A simple link to those two wikis on the Star Trek main page ought to suffice. The rest just seems to be a way for some trekkie-wikiers or wiki-trekkies to pass time... --dllu 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

MA is laden with speculation and unsourced assertions. Wikipedia also doesn't discriminate against including content because it doesn't meet Paramount's definition of canon. Wikipedia also benefits from the presence of non-trekkie editors who can offer unbiased input during disputes and otherwise offer objective critiques. Wikipedia also has a notability standard that keeps negligible minutae -- e.g. "dunsel" -- from getting its own article and appearing to be as significant as, say, James T. Kirk. --EEMeltonIV 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images rationale

List of Star Trek characters is using fair use images without the REQUIRED rationale on the image description page. Rationale must be provided for each use. I posted a similar comment on that article's talk page more than a week ago without any response or action. I will continue removing the images from time to time unless someone provides the rationale. I will not do so because I do not believe this is an appropriate use of fair use images. RedWolf 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I'm having a bit of a problem working out in advance what images i can and cannot use in a projected article on Star Trek Fan audio dramas which I will be splitting off from the Star Trek Fan Productions page. The Wikipedian who removed the test image for Star Trek: Eras focussed on the use of copyright material without a fair use rationale. Is this how the use of a similar image on the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier infoBox was made possible?--Kirok of L'Stok 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving The Time Trap (TAS episode) page

Could somebody move Star Trek - The Time Trap back to The Time Trap (TAS episode)? It was first moved to The Time Trap then somebody moved it again. Koweja 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles moved (again)

I have noticed that several TNG episode articles have moved from "<episode name> (TNG episode)" to "<episode name> (Star Trek: The Next Generation)". Was there a consensus about the move? Either they should be changed back, or this project page needs updating to explain the correct format. Marky1981 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They should be reverted - they haven't been discussed. Matthew 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Memory Alpha template

I just created Template:Memory Alpha, using Template:FreeContentMeta. This is part of a larger project of trying to promote other free content sites that offer information on fictional topics in the hopes that we can start using the differences between ourselves and sites like Memory Alpha to our advantage, moving in-universe content and stuff primarily of interest to fans instead of generalists to those sites. (Obviously Memory Alpha is harder here because it's not GFDL)

I note that Template:Memoryalpha also exists. This template is problematic, as we discourage templates that act like they're plaintext. Would it cause undue chaos if I were to redirect this template to Template:Memory Alpha? Phil Sandifer 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done this now. The only problem I can see is cases where our article is at a different name than Memory Alpha's article. These cases can probably be most easily corrected by just creating a redirect at Memory Alpha, though if you wanted you could probably create some template jiggery-pokery that would, if there's an argument given in the template call, change the destination from PAGENAME to the argument call. In any case, if this caused any headaches, my apologies - it doesn't look like it should. Phil Sandifer 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Most MA entries in External Links are preceded by a *; now that the MA stuff is floating on the right, there's a goofy-looking solitary bullet on the right side of the screen. Could you please use AWB or some such to clean this up? --EEMeltonIV 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go looking for a Mac tool, or see if I can get somebody to tidy that up. (AWB doesn't play well with my Mac). Phil Sandifer 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You've also created a series of double-redirects; take a look at Spock. Please use the What Links Here bit for memoryalpha and alter those other redirects as appropriate. --EEMeltonIV 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Those I can get. Phil Sandifer 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. Phil Sandifer 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I've now fixed the template to use the old argument calls, so if there's an argument call it will link to the correct Memory Alpha article automatically now. Phil Sandifer 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the cast photo from Star Trek: Enterprise

Discussion currently underway at: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_31#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the cast photo has now been deleted by an admin who believes free content could adequately replace that copyrighted image. The deletion review is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_15#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues

I have some issues with the Article Title guidelines on the project page. First of all, I think use of TLAs in article titles is grossly inappropriate. On a Star Trek wiki, they might be sufficient, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and it is unreasonable to assume that they have any significance for members of the general populace. There is no basis to believe that readers will understand the TLAs or seek the articles under those titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions, an official policy, specifies that “Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.”. TLAs make for great shortcuts, but that’s what redirects are for. Article titles should be fully spelled out, with redirects from the short titles to the full to facilitate linking.

Second, there is a subseries of naming conventions specifically dealing with TV-related articles. It specifies that article titles need include “episode” only if it is necessary to disambiguate from another article with the same title related to the same series.( For instance disambiguating the ENT episode “Terra Prime” from the organization of the same name in the series.) It also recommends redirects from disambiguated titles to articles which do not require disambiguation, to prevent the creation of duplicate articles( e.g., redirecting Spock’s Brain (Star Trek) and Spock’s Brain (Star Trek episode) to Spock’s Brain so that no one mistakenly creates articles at those titles).--WikidSmaht (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the page to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Acegikmo1 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Phantasms

Please see the proposed name change at Talk:Phantasms. -- Beardo 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Name was changed, discussion is at: Talk:Phantasms (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 132.205.44.134 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Various IFD nominations

Various IFD nominations on ST photos are located here. The Evil Spartan 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We may as well just replace all the images with screen captures from the episode -- thus nullifying the non-promotional concern. Matthew 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Legacy

It seems to me that the project is concentrating on the other aspects of Star Trek too much. Star Trek: Legacy, one of the many Star Trek games which is also marked as a member article of the project, is an article that I think should be reworked entirely. NPOV seems to be a problem in the article, as does a poorly written "plot summary". Several have already complained on the article's talk page, and I think this article should be added to the WikiProject: Star Trek task list. I own the game, and plan to do some work on the article soon, also.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 04:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek fan productions

This article is frankly pretty poor - I would suggest members of this special interest group try and find some decent sources for it before it is reduced to a stub. --Fredrick day 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as users follow Etiquette, don't use provactive terms like "cruftopedian", refrain from confrontationist reversions without explanation and provide clear and tangible reasons for deletions then the article can only be improved "before it is reduced to a stub" Fredrick day refuses to explain why he feels that the sources are insufficient so that the article can be improved. It is impossible to improve something when you do not know what the parameters are --Kirok of L'Stok 07:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"The parameters" are set out in Wikipedia's policies on verifiable reliable sources for notable material. The article in question does a wholly inadequate job establishing this for most of the productions it lists, and marginally accomplishes it for the legal section. --EEMeltonIV 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...But I agree that Fredrick day (talk · contribs) might have gotten this across clearer had their posts been less vitriolic. --EEMeltonIV 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now if someone could give me an example in the Talk page of the article (as I have asked for) of one or two links that are deemed to be insufficient and why, I will see what can be done to repair them. A little less jargon would help too - I cannot address his concerns about the Fan Films Paramount rulings until I know what "OR" is.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back to talk about Trek inboxes again.

I wrote the article on Ishka in July 2016. At that time, it didn't even occur to me that there was still a Star Trek-specific character infobox around, and I naturally used {{infobox character}}. Today, Rxtreme (talk · contribs) replaced the latter with the former saying, "Replaced 'character' infobox with 'Star Trek character' infobox". Aye, that they did.

Fellow Wiki-Trekkies, why is there a separate infobox for Star Trek characters? We used to have a separate infobox for Trek episodes, too, but in a December 2009 discussion, we saw no need for such duplication. In March 2010, folks at WP:TFD agreed with that decision. Seriously you guys, can we, kay? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I only just noticed that in the December 2009 discussion, I said "Someday when I'm running low on strife, I'll ask about character templates next." I guess that day is today!

As I see it, the general infobox doesn't have Posting, Position or Rank. However, there's the ability to add those in under the lbl parameters. I don't think we miss anything out by simply merging the Star Trek one into the general one, and in fact we gain quite a few options in the infoboxes. Miyagawa (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) Some/many of those parameters don't apply to what percentage of Trek characters who may warrant articles? (b) For those characters who do warrant articles, those parameters will frequently be filled with lists of entrants, trying to encompass everything we know about the character. For example, only 71% of the Michael Burnham infobox fits on my monitor here (currently set at or taller than 51.83% of desktop monitor resolutions). — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems like an instance of "Why do we have more than twenty subtemplates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_character_infobox_templates) for fictional characters?" My guess is that it helps guide editors - they know what data is considered relevant for Star Trek characters in particulars.

(I'm very confused as to why Ishka has a Wikipedia article when, say, Minerva McGonagall, Charlie Bucket and Hawkeye Pierce don't, but I'm guessing that's a larger and more contentious issue. On the other hand, if there were only articles about notable Trek characters, I suspect it would obviate this issue.)--Rxtreme (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue all of those are notable, but I think many of their articles were so poor back in the day that they were merged and no one ever put effort into making good versions of them again, and why bother to have a bunch of shitty articles? I'm sure if I put in effort I could make a decent article for McGonagall, but I hv other stuff going on.★Trekker (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do we have more than twenty subtemplates […] for fictional characters? That's a great question. I don't know why, and that's why I'm advocating that we depreciate {{infobox Star Trek character}}. […] they know what data is considered relevant for Star Trek characters in particulars. Do they, though? Please take no offense at my repeating myself, but look at the infobox in the Michael Burnham article; it's so overloaded that only 71% of it fits on my monitor here (currently set at or taller than 51.83% of desktop monitor resolutions).

I'm very confused as to why Ishka has a Wikipedia article I wrote the article about the Ishka character because I chose to, and there is enough real-world information to sustain such. I can't speak to what I assume are other characters you mentioned; I've neither searched for nor edited those topics. […] if there were only articles about notable Trek characters, I suspect it would obviate this issue. Are you saying that there are few-to-no notable Trek characters, and ergo there wouldn't be a separate infobox in the first place, or are you saying that there are so fantastically-many notable Trek characters that nobody could overcome the inertia of the WikiProject and sheer amount of characters, e.g. {{Infobox Simpsons character}}? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that according to my understanding of the notability guidelines and as they are applied to most works of fiction (Star Trek, Simpsons and Lord of the Rings being glaring exceptions), Star Trek has roughly three notable characters: Kirk, Spock and Picard (there may be a fourth that I'm unaware of).--Rxtreme (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No offence, but your understanding of notability standards must be really warped.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, none taken, naturally. Here's the guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction): "Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element". This is true of very few Star Trek characters. Also, given that your assumption above ("I think many of their articles were so poor back in the day that they were merged and no one ever put effort into making good versions of them again") was wrong (see discussion of McGonagall here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Harry_Potter_task_force/Notability/Teachers), you might want to look into why minor characters from other works of fiction don't have their own Wikipedia articles.--Rxtreme (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I have to say, that was 10 years ago and I very much disagree with the discussion.★Trekker (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of notable Star Trek characters, from before and after 10 years ago. These are among the most known and honored characters in film and television history. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Related: I also switched the templates for Jadzia Dax. That lost us some information (creator, born, last episode, gender) but standardized other information ("Star Trek" in the header, "species" rather than "home planet", "partner" rather than "significant other(s)"). Especially where the "character" infobox doesn't have a field, the standardization is quite useful. (In fact, the lack of standardization is what brought me to both the Dax and Ishka articles. (I'm working on a fictional character database drawn from "character" infoboxes.)) --Rxtreme (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, these articles aren't for Star Trek fans specifically, they're for anybody. In your edit, you removed the character's last media appearance and the real-world individuals who created the character. Currently, there is no germane information in the {{infobox Star Trek character}} that could not be served by {{infobox character}}. […] where the "character" infobox doesn't have a field, the standardization is quite useful. You'll get no argument from me that standardization is useful, hence the proposed depreciation of a non-standard character infobox. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I noted that I removed those, whether "last appearance" belongs in an infobox is a separate issue. And there's no question that editors can still write long infoboxes under the guidelines. My argument is simply that if they use the template, they'll include "species" rather than "homeworld", "home planet", "race", "origin" or any of a dozen similar classifications. I've found this standardization (which is narrower than that provided by simply "character") to be useful--Rxtreme (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

{{infobox Star Trek character}} and {{infobox character}} both use |species=; neither suggests using the parameters you listed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So they do! There's so much variation that I didn't check if the "character" infobox had a standard. (The infoboxes for Tolkein, Narnia and Final Fantasy use "Race" for similar purposes; Doctor Who and Space: 1999 use "Home Planet".) You can make a similar argument for "posting", "position" and "rank", but it's less compelling.--Rxtreme (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

For those parameters and others, there are the blank labels available in {{infobox character}} for those Star Trek characters where having that information at-a-glance is deemed essential by those editors. Would you still specifically object to the depreciation I recommended, considering the greater flexibility of the wider-used template? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's a question of flexibility, it shouldn't be hard to make the Star Trek template flexible. (Or to add fields - I don't know why "last appearance" isn't a field for Trek characters.) I don't strongly object to the change, but I don't see a compelling argument for it. (And I see a rather weak argument against it.)--Rxtreme (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a question of necessity, upkeep, and standardization. The Trek-specific infobox isn't needed when the non-specific template can perform all the same functions. The Trek infobox has been maintained by 57 editors 0.029 times per day, while the character infobox has been maintained by 85 editors 0.056 times per day; the wider template has 49% more editors, and is updated 1.93 times as often. Lastly, there's nothing special about Trek characters that warrants them having a non-standard character infobox used by most other characters' articles. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna' toss my 2p in and say that we should just deprecate the Star Trek-specific one. When I look at Michael Burnham, I mostly see info that is treated like Burnham is a real character, not a fictional one—as in the infobox is tacitly pushing people to load it up with minutae that aren't important (knowing Burnham 'was'/'will be' born in the 2220s isn't important compared to the actress being the black lead of a Star Trek show, for instance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this comment. Michael Burnham doesn't use the Star Trek infobox (which maybe somebody should fix, pending the resolution of this proposal), but it sounds like you're saying the Star Trek infobox is prompting people to populate it up with minutiae? --Rxtreme (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

a negative magnetic corridor

Friends, Romulans, countrybeings, lend me your ears! It looks like I, User:Miyagawa, and User:David Fuchs are in favor of depreciating our franchise-specific character infobox, while I think User:Rxtreme is …opposed? Is the input of three editors against the objections of a fourth (zero of whom are among the 126 listed participants of this project) a consensus? Thoughts? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyeballs, please

Hi! If you have a moment, there's a bit of a content dispute over at Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (article history). Please chime in when you can. --EEMIV (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've escalated the issue above to the edit-war noticeboard. If any of you do have time, it would be nice to have a franchise-knoweldgeable but content-uninvolved editor offer input. Talk:USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)#Removal_of_trivia_in_article --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I did skim the discussion, but...wow, what a mess. It probably needs a point-by-point discussion for clarity, and editors need to take a step back and remember there's WP:NODEADLINE, especially for material like this. And yes, if the Talk discussion's claims are accurate, there does appear to be edit-warring going on. I can't help at this time, but wish you the best of luck. DonIago (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit stale now: the other party was one-day blocked for edit warring, and seems to have backed off. And since then, I think I've done a pretty good job reworking the whole piece. For entirely different purposes, feedback is still solicited over there! --EEMIV (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek vs Transformers

This new page has been put up, but I'm not 100% sure it's a real topic (just sounds odd that the Trek franchise would team up with the Transformers franchise). If it is, please help the page along if you wish. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a real thing, but WP:TOOSOON as the first issue doesn’t come out until next month. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dammit. Very complicated, head-scratching idea to consider

Okay. I had an idea, but realized it would kinda snowball, perhaps, into some other ideas. Or at least jack up the disambig text we have for the various Star Trek starship Enterprise articles. Hence picking this forum to try to take them all on en masse.

• Idea 1: Merge USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) into USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) - from a real-world perspective, little distinguishes the -A (original or reboot) from its antecedent, and that’s borne out by the article’s current anemic state.

However, the idea above has some fallout:

• Idea 1 + Idea 2a: Idea 1 + Rename USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) into USS Enterprise (James T. Kirk) - because the captain and crew is what persists across all these iterations, save for the edge cases like "The Cage" and beginning of 2009 Star Trek. One might expect, then for USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) to be renamed USS Enterprise (Jean-Luc Picard) ... however, meh, I dunno. For one, there are two ships, I think sufficiently distinct and notable to warrant separate articles, with his name attached. I'd thought the 1701-E would have more third-party coverage/commentary, but meh I'm really not seeing much and am gingerly questioning notability. Have a slew though for the -D. Hmm. And then there's Archer.

• Idea 1 + Idea 2b: Idea 1 + Rename USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) to USS Enterprise (Star Trek) - conveniently, this is the name of both TOS and the first film reboot featuring the Kirks. And it’s easier to imagine a rename of the 1701-D article to USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Next Generation). End the -E to ... USS E (ST:TNG films)? Longer and longer dab text ... and somewhere in there, need to decide whether a consistent dab pattern trumps clarity of topic ... probably not. Also, I'm not sure USS Enterprise (Star Trek) really is effective disambiguation.

And then coming full circle:

• Idea 3: Just as there’s really no real-world distinction between the refit Enterprise and the 1701-A, there are huge real-world distinctions between the TOS design and the film reimagining; our decision to keep them in one article stems more from an in-universe perspective. Is it worth considering shifting the TOS content out, and keeping the TMP-TUC ship"s" separate? USS Enterprise (Star Trek: The Original Series) and USS Enterprise (Star Trek films?)? Maybe roll in the 2009 reboot into the latter, with a hatnote that the 1701-E from the TNG films is at Enterprise (ST:TNG films), and the 1701-D ==> Enterprise (ST:TNG). NX-01 => Star Trek: Enterprise.

My head hurts, and I hope yours does, too. I propose Idea 1 + 2a or Idea 3 and am willing to protect the time to carry out the changes. I'm squishy on where to put the reboot Enterprise (does it warrant a separate article?). And of course for something like this really just want y'all's input. What say ye? --EEMIV (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see the argument for merging the -A into the original, as aside from a few lines of production information about reusing the refit model and some details on interiors for V and VI there's not much to add. More importantly, the cultural context of the OG, refit and -A (and even the reboot version) are pretty much wrapped together, I think it's a better idea to leave the names as is than identify them by captain, as you point out it doesn't neatly fit and raises issues with other articles and established precedent for how we disambiguate fictional items and real military craft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Fuchs:, what do you think about folding the -A into the original and shifting the dab text to just "(Star Trek)" and supplementing that with a hatnote pointing toward other flavors -- at least, For Now? --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@EEMIV: Me, I'd be OK with the merge, but I'd rather leave the title of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) just as it is. Changing the disambiguator to "(Star Trek)" would be really ambiguous, because Star Trek encompasses the whole franchise... so I think that makes "(Star Trek)" more of an ambiguator. :) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, OK, let's open this can of worms! So, one of my favorite things to do when I am wrapped up in an article that I have a passion for is to remember that wikipedia is for the millions of non-fans out there that are looking for some kind of information on a topic, and how can we, as editors, even fanatic editors, present that in an encyclopedic fashion? So, if you were looking for information on the Enterprise from Trek, you're probably going to type a search for enterprise or perhaps uss enterprise. It is interesting that typing either takes you to the disambiguation page, which is actually great, because a lay-person can actually see all the Enterprises listed and make a selection. Doing a search for star trek enterprise takes you to the article on the TV series, but it lists a disambiguation at the top that offers Starship Enterprise. So, what does this mean and what is my point? I think that people that don't know anything about the Enterprise will do a search that will most likely end at Starship Enterprise and from there they can pick an Enterprise that they may be looking for. I think that the articles should be left as they are, but that the Starship Enterprise page should be improved upon, and should include, either in the intro or towards the top, EEMIV's idea of associating Enterprises with Captains, so that a lay-person looking for Picard's Enterprise would see a list and click on it. StarHOG (Talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: honestly, I think it's much more navigable the way it is. The only one of these changes that I'd support is to merge the page on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) into USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), leaving a redirect.

However, I would not object if somebody created redirects in accordance with your suggestion. There's an essay about that: WP:Redirects are cheap. As far as I can tell, it would cause no problems if USS Enterprise (Captain Kirk) existed as a redirect to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), and USS Enterprise (Captain Picard) existed as a redirect to USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).

(By the way, you all might be interested in knowing how well the template {{USS}} works for writing these links. All I had to type was {{USS|Enterprise|Captain Kirk}} and {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701}}, and it formatted a wikilink with perfect italicization.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Looks like there is consensus for at least the 1701-A merge. I'll work on that, and we can defer on some of the rest. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

EEMIV, I've rolled back the 1701-A page, and please roll back any changes made from this discussion. What is aptly described as a complicated and head-scratching proposal was made September 3, just four days ago. There is no agreement made in four days, there is the start of a long discussion which many of us have not come here to wrap-our-heads-around yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. The first one really is a no-brainer, but whatever; I'll undo some of the tweaks. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so where do we stand on edits today? I see the pages were merged, but are now separate again. Are we looking for a consensus? Have you had a change of heart? Your edits are extensive but I think the overall effect is good so far. I'm scared to jump in and tweak because you seem to still be going strong, and I'm not sure where we stand with the merge. StarHOG (Talk) 15:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be all for a merge if it was a true merge, a page named for both subjects where nothing even close to important is lost. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Randy, I don't know what to suggest about a "page named for both subjects" beyond what's above. Do you have a preference or suggestion, or are you just laying out your criteria? Hog, I think I'm mostly done for now with major edits -- please fire away at continuing to improve the article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just spent a bunch of effort on reworking the Borg but will try to swing back around to it. StarHOG (Talk) 18:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Star Trek

I noticed some peculiarities on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek page, specifically the list of recent changes. David Ogden Stiers showed up as a recently, Star Trek related article to get edited, but I can find no tags on his page that would seem to link him to Trek, so how does the project page track him? And it isn't showing my recent edits to Beverly Crusher, Wesley Crusher, or William Riker but it lists my million-plus edits to Borg. Any clues or answers? StarHOG (Talk) 18:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how it works, but I can explain one discrepancy: I, like you, saw David Ogden Stiers on that list. Mr. Stiers guest-starred in one, single episode of The Next Generation; this does not place his biography under out purview, so I removed the project template. That's why you're not seeing it now. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, my question was not why he showed up, I know he was Timicin, but where did you find the template? I didn't see it anywhere in his article. StarHOG (Talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Prime Directive

I've been working on an overhaul of Prime Directive and have come to an impasse. There are two sections in the article giving me trouble: One, Use as Allegory seems to just be a heap of examples from episodes where the Prime Directive was mentioned or broken. Is a bunch of plot synopsis needed in this article? I gave some thought to blanking this section, and some thought of making it more like a list of episode titles and then a brief description of how it relates to the prime directive. Ideas?

Two, Criticism that points out discrepancies in Prime Directive story lines. It is a little harsh, maybe too in-universe in that, at some point, you have to say, hey, it was a TV show and the writers didn't always get it right or screwed around with things or didn't always think things through. I also gave thought to blanking this section. Who is the criticism from? fans that see problems? Outside critics who are over-analyzing a TV show? Thoughts? StarHOG (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...quick skim thoughts, both of those sections look like a lot of mostly plot summary. I would expect a Criticism section to site third-party commentary. And maybe the cited sources provide that, but the prose itself reads mostly as plot summary. The Allegory section also has an in-universe perspective, and really I have a hard time discerning where the allegoricalness comes into play there. Looking at the other sections, I'm mostly seeing an article that is about how the Prime Directive is depicted -- and even in-episode/in-film "criticisms" or observations about the Prime Directive are still part of its depiction. Two main suggestions for improvement: 1) the article should be compelling, but not exhaustive; right now, it looks like it's trying to chase every Prime Directive rabbit hole the franchise has gone down, and that's not tenable. I think a high-level overview -- a paragraph or two -- about the PD could cover most of the bases. Describe the directive itself, and maybe episodes (cited by sources) where the PD is a driving element of the plot. 2) Needs some real-world perspective. Whence the PD in the first place? Is this Roddenberry pushing back on American involvement in Viet Nam? Were the Insurrection producers channeling the Native American experience? How have the producers leveraged the real-world context to make the PD meaningful to its immediate viewers? I humbly offer The Force as an example of an article that takes an important plot element and gives it a balanced in- and out-of-universe treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too sure Force was such a good comaprrison, I found it very wordy, too, especially that nonsense at the end with Reagan and what it really means to say, "May the Firce be with you" I mean, even Ackbar says, "May the Force be with us" before assaulting the Death Star, right? StarHOG (Talk) 18:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Inspired by Captain Cook?

Sorry if I do this wrong ... but someone need to fix the errors on the main page ... how can you talk about Star Trek an not mention that the show was based on the discovery of Australia by Arther Philip & captain cook, in their ships the Endeavour & the Enterprise ( 1788 )

“The creator of science-fiction series Star Trek was also famously inspired by Captain Cook and his ship, naming his fictional hero James T. Kirk and his spacecraft The Enterprise.

Kirk is the son of an Iowa farmer while Captain Cook was the son of a Yorkshire farmer.

The spoken line in Star Trek's opening credits "... to boldly go where no man has gone before" was inspired by a line in Cook's journal: "... farther than any other man has been before me ... as far as I think it possible for a man to go".”

Again sorry if I mess this post up. I just think it’s an important fact to be included in the main article.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.27.253 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be fine to include this IF (and only if) one or more reliable sources can be cited which mention it. Note that simply saying the connection is obvious (to you) is not enough. Did Gene Roddenberry ever say anything about this? Did any of the writers, or any of the actors, ever talk about this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Vulture.com ratings notable?

Is it notable how Vulture.com rates an episode? My apologies, I'm not especially familiar with this publication. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Site unseen, I would say that since Vulture is a component of New York, it's fine to use if you'd care to. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. On a related note, is it sensible to mention in the reception section for any of the individual episodes from DS9's final arc that CBR thought the arc itself was the best episodic saga done by Star Trek? This doesn't seem to be a reflection on each individual episode so much as the arc entire (i.e. for all we know CBR thought the specific episode was extremely poor). Sorry for the string of questions. There's an editor who's been adding a lot of material to articles with greatly varying levels of quality, which makes it hard to trust their editorial judgment. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bold edits are encouraged by wikipedia. As long as you are not easily offended, make your edits and if other editors don't like something, they will take it down or alter it, hopefully spawning a dialogue that makes the article better. If you think that a casual reader would understand DS9 better because you made an addition, then go for it. That is what it is all about.StarHOG (Talk) 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okie-doke. DonIago (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Top X Lists

Sorry to be bringing up yet another concern, but do editors here feel it's appropriate to note that characters or episodes should be noted for having appeared on a Top X list regardless of how far down that list they placed? For instance, is it notable if an episode was considered 95th best on a list of top 100? I know there's a lot of Trek out there these days, but my instincts say that anything beyond the top 25 or so probably isn't all that notable. Looking for a consensus before I start rolling back edits. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, sometimes showing the placement on a list speaks to how poor the episode was. If an episode kinda sucked, and you showed that it ranked 99 out of 100, that kind of tells the reader the quality of an episode, right? StarHOG (Talk) 16:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I also have concerns about those edits, while not being disruptive, most do seem non-notable. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, do you mean they aren't notable because everybody and his brother on the internet has a top 10 list, is jimmy joe bob's blog.com really notable enough to be listed? or do you mean that if it is far down a list it doesn't seem notable? StarHOG (Talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Both, if it's relevant. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it says much of anything...if there's 700+ episodes of the franchise and an episode is 100th best in the franchise (and that's what these edits seem to be discussing), that doesn't make it bad...but it also doesn't seem to make it incredibly noteworthy, especially outside the world of Star Trek fans. I mean, TOS doesn't even have 100 episodes... DonIago (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any objection to using Top 25 as the cut-off point for these kinds of lists? I'll give it a few days before taking any action. DonIago (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I like 25. I also think there is some merit, as I said above, when an episode is at the very bottom of a list, but I guess that isn't really what you are talking about here. The bottom of the list would be more case-by-case where the top 25 would be a standard across the board, right? StarHOG (Talk) 15:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'd need to know what kind of list we were talking about before I could comment on whether placing at the bottom would seem notable. "We Rated Every Star Trek episode ever!!!" might be pertinent, as then you could say the bottom of the list were considered the worst, but I'm not sure what other cases you might have in mind? Thanks for helping to move this forward! DonIago (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not not make a blanket policy on "top" lists, as they are common even among reputable sources like Forbes and Newsweek. If there is a problem with a source, lets handle that with existing guidelines. Cheers Starspotter (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Do either of them do "top" lists that extend beyond 25 entries, with regards to Star Trek? I'm open to reconsidering my viewpoint but I'd like a good example of an exceptional case, and it may be that they should remain exceptions with supporting consensus rather than the rule. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I tend to view the nature of listing as part of the source's authority, my bigger concern is if is a valid source (e.g. not a blog for example) and secondly, does it have something relevant to the article. For example, Radio Times has a "Top 50" [1] of which I think used only the top 50 source. In that case what was notable I think, was not the ranking of 50 but rather that it discussed that show being censored by the BBC. Starspotter (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But would you say "X placed #50 on the list of greatest Trek moments" without any additional information? To me that seems pretty irrelevant, especially to the general public. The moment may be worth mentioning if there's more that can be said about it, but then perhaps the listing itself isn't the point. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Five out of Five stars is pretty universally considered a "good rating". Being 100th may not so impressive, but when there is over 730 episodes it actually exceeds five out of five stars quality. Starspotter (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's synthesis. You can't take a ranking and convert it to a star rating on your own perogative. The reviewer could just as easily feel that any episode after the top 25 wouldn't merit a full five stars. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to institute an arbitrary cutoff, but rather just focus on actual content. If a publication is ranking every episode of Trek, then an episode's placement at #312 doesn't seem very relevant (especially since the gradient between individual episodes is infinitesimal. If it's a more discriminating list, it's more likely to be relevant. (I think it also depends on the publication. If they regularly put out listicles, it seems like it's less likely to be worth including.) 17:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of my point though...how should we be determining relevancy? Obviously #1 is relevant, probably #2-10 as well. When do we say it's not relevant enough to be mentioned? I think it's fair to say for any list with over 25 items, anything over 25 can be considered irrelevant. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong angle to approach it from. Creating an arbitrary cut-off point based on our feelings is not a good solution. What we should be looking at is the quality of the lists themselves. As has already been mentioned there are many, many best-of-this-and-that lists out there and they often serve as nothing but clickbait and are based on nothing but the opinion of the person making the list. I recently saw one listed as one of the 5 episodes, across all series, without a living being as an antagonist. I'm positive there are more than 5 such episodes, but whoever made the list just picked one from TOS, one from TNG, one from DS9, and so on, and left it at that. So my point is that most of thse lists, unless published by a fairly solid source, are not even worth considering. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you know what my next question is going to be... :p DonIago (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems at this point there isn't a consensus to make any changes. Thanks everyone for your time. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on official Star Trek books on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the independence of official Star Trek encyclopedias, manuals, and guides on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Official Star Trek encyclopedias, manuals, and guides. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino film draft

For any interested parties, I have established a draft article for this potential project, located at Draft:Untitled Star Trek project. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NFF. Under that policy (part of WP:Notability (films)), the Tarantino project doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines to get an article yet. But there's certainly at least one place where you can put this content, and expand it over time until it qualifies for an article of its own.

In particular, there's an existing redirect for Star Trek (film series), which goes to List of Star Trek films and television series#Feature films. I think it may be preferable to move your draft into a new section of that article (named #Untitled Star Trek project). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC) rev. 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You may want to merge content in from the following locations:

• List of Star Trek films and television series#Future film projects (second paragraph of section)
• Star Trek Beyond#Possible sequel (section)

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Untitled Star Trek sequel already exists, as a redirect to List of Star Trek films and television series#Feature films. If you wanted to create a similar redirect from Untitled Star Trek project to the new section discussed above, per WP:Redirects are cheap, I wouldn't oppose that. (Notwithstanding that both the redirects, existing and proposed, are ambiguous names that could apply to untitled TV projects as well as untitled feature films. They're also both time-dependent, as projects mature, and may become obsolete or require updating to new targets every few years.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: NFF is why i created this in the draftspace. I don't intend on it being moved until it is actually filming. I just linked it here in case editors wished to contribute to fleshing the draft out. Being a draft doesn't mean it's an actual article in the mainspace, so there's no need for it to be moved elsewhere..., for more info please see WP:DRAFT. Rusted AutoParts 17:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Untitled Star Trek sequel was a previous article title for Into Darkness. Rusted AutoParts 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Trek abbreviations

I've been keeping an eye on {{Star Trek abbreviations}} for a while now since it's frequently either vandalized or changed because editors don't understand how its used. Today Richito (talk · contribs) added an abbreviation of "STP" for Star Trek: Picard, saying, "Star Trek: Picard is a new series title announced at CBS upfront on May 15, 2019 and will premiere on CBS All Access in late 2019." Can we here please come up with a consensus for our preferred series abbreviation? FWIW, I'm in favor of eschewing the abbreviation of "Star Trek" itself, and would suggest "PIC". — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Conditionally agree, but will defer to what actual initialism (if any) the producers put out to use. Not seeing anything either way at startrek.com. --EEMIV (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wait, I think EEMIV is correct in this, I don't think we as wiki editors have been coming up with these abbreviations ourselves, we always use whatever the official community comes with such as on startrek.com. StarHOG (Talk) 12:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• This. Tried to write this but somehow forget all the words. :) --EEMIV (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No objections to any of the replies, but I wanted to note that DrEVILish (talk · contribs) just changed it from "STP" to "PIC". — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

2607:fea8:1360:1109:6983:fbd1:cc38:8dae (talk · contribs) has changed the Picard abbreviation from "PIC" to "STP". — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

StarTrek,com links in External links

I notice that the link to the StarTrek.com page in the External Links section for What You Leave Behind no longer works; I guess they’ve re-indexed their pages. I assume that this will be the case for a lot of episodes although I haven’t checked. The page is still there and I would update to a new link, but the link is in the form of a template which I don’t know how to amend. Any takers? As an example, the wiki mark-up is currently {{StarTrek.com link|DS9|107768|What You Leave Behind, Part II}} which takes you to https://intl.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/episodes/DS9/detail/107768.html. The page is now at https://intl.startrek.com/database_article/what-you-leave-behind-part-ii. danno_uk 21:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If ST.com is gonna change its URL scheme every other year it seems like, maybe the template ain’t worth it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Aron Eisenberg death? - reliable sources needed

Please see this talk page. Meticulo (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ignore my request, above. Reliable sources have now been found. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)