Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Serious problem with Voyager episode articles

I happened across the Voyager series recently, and dug a bit further. I reviewed the following articles:

1. Sacred Ground (Star Trek: Voyager)
2. Rise (Star Trek: Voyager)
3. Revulsion (Star Trek: Voyager)
4. Retrospect (Star Trek: Voyager)
5. Hope and Fear
6. Dark Frontier (Star Trek: Voyager)
7. Warhead (Star Trek: Voyager)
8. One Small Step (Star Trek: Voyager)
9. Live Fast and Prosper (Star Trek: Voyager)
10. Body and Soul (Star Trek: Voyager)

What I found was not good. Only one of those ten (Retrospect (Star Trek: Voyager)) had any references at all, and that one had just one...to a primary source (startrek.com). All of the articles have external links only to memoryalpha and to startrek.com. I.e., these articles are completely unreferenced by anything from secondary sources. This makes all of these articles fail the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Further, the articles are almost entirely made up of plot. If you remove the infobox and external links section in all of them, what you are left with is almost entirely all plot. Only One Small Step (Star Trek: Voyager) has anything significant beyond plot (and all of it is unreferenced), and six have nothing but plot. The other three have a single sentence beyond plot. This makes the articles fail the WP:PLOT policy. If we are to abide by our policies and guidelines, all of these ten articles would be subject to deletion. Also, of the ten articles six contain screenshots. Of those six screenshots, all have very weak fair use rationales, and only one is even barely sufficient (and even it is lacking), File:ST-VOY 6 08.jpg. If these problems can not be addressed, you're facing mass deletion of up to 172 episode articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem with the Enterprise episodes, and listed a merge suggestion for the first season. No one was interested, so the merge tags went. Perhaps we might reach for a larger discussion of such episode, a large merge with notable episodes singled out for well cited individual articles. Alastairward (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I support the redirection of episodic articles (those lacking in RS and consisting of PLOT) to their apropos LOE or seasonal article. Furthermore, it's my interpretation of the non-free content policy and its criteria that we don't need to use any copyrighted media unless reliably sourced critical commentary is made on something from the episode which cannot otherwise be sufficiently described by text alone or a libre-licensed image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, so how about this: Tag all Voyager episode articles lacking references to out-of-universe secondary sources with {{notability}}. Wait six months. At that time, any articles still lacking the references to be merged to List_of_Star_Trek:_Voyager_episodes. Agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly the reason they haven'y gotten merged earlier is few people have the will, and there's a good chance many of them might in fact be fit for a standalone article, we just don't have ready access to sources about them :P Nevertheless other projects have followed the path we're talking about of stripping everything to lists (lets face it it's not really much of a merge) except for notable episodes—for example Stargate SG-1 has the majority of content merged save for episodes like "200". Really, if anyone has the time we should go through all Star Trek episode articles and tag them... the only ones I might exempt is TOS, as given the comparatively limited number of episodes it seems there is more critical and scholarly analysis. Anyhow, I think the articles with the greatest chance are event episodes and season premiere/finales, so we might as well focus our efforts on that (we got "These Are the Voyages... to FA, why not shoot for "All Good Things..." or "Endgame"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise

I had considered the issue might be extended to Enterprise episodes. I was going to tag them just to let other readers know the issue has been raised. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually myself, and two other editors are working to find references. We need more time though. I have removed the merge tags. If we have not found sources at the very least by the end 2011 then it could be submitted for merge. There are three of use working, and over 200 Star Trek articles. Finding sources for all of them will take considerable time. Currently we are working on Dominion War --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm readding them, to ask to wait till the end of 2011 is a bit much. Six months was suggested by another editor. Really, they're just episode articles. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline on wikipedia. Merging all Star Trek episode articles immediately is a bit rash. If they can be fixed (with a lot of work) then they should. Information in episode articles helps the reader understand the series better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Quadrant (talk • contribs)

If someone wants to undertake the daunting task of merging, let them. Any episode that can be spun out can easily be resurrected from the page history and expanded. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The following is an idea for the improvement of this Wikipedia WikiProject.

Hello all, I have noticed a lot of Star Trek articles are being merged or deleted due to lack of sources. We need to find sources for the articles. Merging all of the articles into lists would be easier, but it would also be lazy and significantly lower the quality of the information. We need to have a organized effort to fix these articles, add references, and assess and reassess articles. This WikiProject is becoming inactive. We need to organize a task force to get many of the articles in this project fixed rather than merging all of the articles into one list. Look at WikiProject Stargate, they have about the same number of articles and they are doing much better than us. They have a lot of quality articles because they coordinated their efforts. If we don't start fixing our Star Trek articles, more and more of them will be going through AFD. Assessment of articles is also slow. I spent May 7th - 8th grading 200 articles and they have not been moved into archives because there are no newly graded articles. (see this log) Therefore I propose that we nominate and vote for a project coordinator who will coordinate efforts to fix, reference, assess, and reassess articles. Thank you for your time, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not really sure what a coordinator would improve. We're a small project, and I, for one, am more a "lone wolf" editor—not to mention that editing the Star Trek film articles is practically a full-time wikitask in itself. I'd love to help providing sources and such, but my library is rather small and I'm not really near a library where I can get access to the companions/materials we'd need to source the individual eps. Rant cut to the chase, it seems to me like a layer of beauracracy that's unneeded—we can discuss things on the talk page, and have project subpages to keep people in the loop on progress.

Now, on the mention of merging, deletions... what are we talking about? I'm much more open to getting rid of minor characters and factions, but considering the real-world tangibility of episodes I would go through more of an effort to try and save those. I'm all for increasing quality and centralizing coverage.

...Sorry if I'm not making sense here, or I'm answering tangental questions or too many or not enough or whatnot, I'm a bit frazzled (looking for jobs, housing, dealing with that pesky real world.) 19:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am particularly referring to Star Trek Animated Series episodes as well as important places in the star trek universe, such as the Unicomplex, which was the most recent Star Trek article to be merged due to lack of sources and poor writing. A single project coordinator may not be best, but we do have to make a coordinated effort. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a coordinator, you need more participants and activity. Try looking for users that have Trek-related userboxes on their pages,and asking for help in specific articles. Use clean-up tags on articles that require them.

As for "lists," we have to abide by The WP guide for lists and not just be a repository of facts.

Personally, I think Memory-Alpha and Memory-Beta do a superb job, and their content does not need to reproduced here. Just edit brief information here that describes the content to a non-Trekkie, and then point to M-A for more detailed information at the bottom of the article. BTW, if you're looking for references, try Memory-Alpha! ;) ... My two quatloos of input... -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I had suggested and had merged some of those TAS articles. I don't think we need to abide by our ability to have an article on practically every Star Trek subject (WP:PAPER and all that). There's only so much more that an individual article can show us about episodes that a summary page can. Especially when it's not a very notable episode.

I'm trying to pull in reviews that will support the TOS episodes, but if that isn't enough, so be it. Alastairward (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any particular use for a coordinator, given the small size of the overall project. I disagree with the underlying notion that merging content into lists degrades the quality of coverage: it's more than most of the nitpicky elements of Star Trek don't actually matter in the real world, and they're better relegated to list-y coverage (a general compromise between overly detailed in-universe coverage and outright deletion). --EEMIV (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New templates

I have created two new templates for the project:

1. Template:WikiProject Star Trek Top
2. Template:WPST Inactive

--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we template someone that they've been removed from the wikiproject? Wikiprojects are entirely self-opt-in and -out. --EEMIV (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in the WikiProject general guidelines. They recommend that WikiProjects should set a time in which active users are removed from active status. I selected two years. This is a rather long time. WikiProject Statgate's minimum activity is four months. This guideline is in place to keep WikiProject lists from being filled with inactive users who left wikipedia. If users came here looking for Star Trek help and they try asking a retired user who didn't bother to remove their name from the list/something came up and they couldn't edit anymore they won't find it from these users. Two years is a long time to not edit, but they may return. That is why I made the template to leave on their talk page. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

What is the stance of this Wikiproject in regards to using MA as a source? I totally get why we would want to use the sources cited within MA in our articles, but what about uncited info within any given article in MA? Given that they do not maintain the relatively stringent level of criteria that we do, I feel concerned that we are going to be allowing fancruft into our articles. We need sources, not speculation masked as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any wiki is not a reliable source as it cannot be easily or specifically attributed to any one person, and they do not have editorial standards. They may be permissible as external links in some scenarios. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, David. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I ask because someone is defending the creation of a page called Hikaru Kato, citing its non-cited reference in memory Alpha. They are using that page to redirect it to the Hikaru Sulu article. It appears that - outside of MA and a Japanese ST shopping website (which uses MA material almost word for word) - the term hasn't been used by any reliable or notable source. I don't think fancruft should be used as an article or a redirect. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If there aren't reliable sources, then it's probably not a valid redirect. Take it to WP:RFD if need be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have voted keep in the deletion discussion. It appears to be a valid redirect, one that may be used by many people. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

V'ger

On June 17, 2010 EEMIV deleted this article and placed a redirect to the Star Trek: The Motion Picture. They stated that this was because of the treatment of the artilce, that it was too "in-universe" and it relied on plot.

I have reverted this decision because:

1. the action was taken without any consensus or discussion
2. attempts have not been made to improve the article first
3. V'ger is the protagonist in the first film that launched that restarted the Star Trek franchise.

However, I am not an expert on the subject and therefore I am making you project editors aware as I hope you can help to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.18.50 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the general list of Star Trek characters would suffice just as well as a redirect to TMP. There's nothing in that article that deserves to be kept as a separate entity. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely there's enough real-world information (WP:WAF) about V'ger to warrant an article--it certainly doesn't meet muster as it stands. I support merging into a list of Star Trek characters (or similar), since the character does recur throughout the franchise. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. There might be enough content on its conception and aspects of filming, but not enough third-party/critical coverage to merit justification. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Technical aspects of its creation and/or filming might be best placed on the TMP article, information on the character (anything inuniverse) would find a place in the list of ST characters. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP Star Trek in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Star Trek for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and remember to sign your name. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

I'm not sure what you guys will get out of this article. I found:

• "Judge beams 'trekkie' juror from Whitewater case." (Images visible in the Archive) CNN. March 14, 1996 - This also has links to many probably long-defunct websites

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure where it would be applicable without being trivia... Kind of like the bank robbers wielding bat'leths :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PADD

This redirects to LCARS, where it isn't mentioned or explained. A search shows that it's used in a lot of Star Trek articles. Someone might like to sort it out? If it's an alternative name for LCARS then say so. Thanks. PamD (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to search right now to see if it deserves its own article (such as the tricorder does) but a slight expansion of the LCARS article would suffice for the time being. The two are not the same I suppose, LCARS is an OS of sorts for the Padd. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that phaser doesn't have its own page, it is under a page of star trek weapons. Does a page exist like this for equipment? I would think a padd would fall under that. I did a search for Hypo and spray hypo but came up with nada. Akuvar (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Galactic quadrant

The article Galactic quadrant is up for deletion discussion. You guys may want to save it. (Note: see sandbox version if it is not already merged) —CodeHydro 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bios of Star Trek actors

I've been working on a few of the bios of star trek related actors, does that fall within the scope of this project? Akuvar (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're heavy hitters or series regulars, they should be tagged; guest actors, not so much, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of edits to Takei's page and keeping vandals at bay. That is where I first paid attention to the wikiproject flag and got me interested. Akuvar (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the project page listed Denise Crosby's page needed work. Yeah, that's an understatement. I did some initial cleanup but it needs so much more. I'll take that page on as a project. Akuvar (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'u' (opera): Klingons take note

Hi. I started an article about the new Klingon opera, 'u', premiering at The Hague this week. K'plah! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears to meet notability guidelines, so it's a worthy stub... wonder how the play actually is though :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page color

I noticed that many other WikiProjects have different colored project pages and the project talk pages, I thought black with white letters (maybe yellow) would look good for our Star Trek Project. So I was WP:BOLD and changed the talk page background. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was equally bold and changed it back, it really did look terrible, sorry. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Star Trek articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to place a list of merged episode articles?

I was going to make good on some of the articles I'd tagged from Star Trek: Enterprise and merge them.

There's an overview of the different seasons on the main article page for the series and an overall episode list for the series. I'd put together a season page in my userspace as per those already exist for other series (like Stargate SG-1 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) but it seems to replicate a lot from those first two Enterprise articles.

Would the season page I'd created in my userspace be worth turning into a full article, with slightly expanded plots for each episode? Or might episodes without any chance of being more than plot just be redirected back to the general list of episodes? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the list, but could you please wait a few more weeks before turning the articles into redirects? I am trying to improve them so they are acceptable quality. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been tagged for a while now and a redirect can be undone once created. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always found "List of X episodes" to be highly redundant with "X (Season Y)" articles; I think that creating the latter is more useful since it contains far more information beyond the embedded list. Frankly, I'd just axe the overall list of episodes and just go with seasons, because even featured lists for the episodes (e.g., List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) doesn't give any useful information beyond dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a template for this: "What David Fuchs said." --EEMIV (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I made it so. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good start. I think a brief production section would also be useful (not to duplicate much of the show's creation, which should be in the main article, but more practical things for the overall season.) @EEMIV: I wholeheartedly approve of said template :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

More input for merger

Can we get some more input at the merge discussion please? [1] I see nothing gained by wiping out individual episode articles. Star Trek Enterprise episode one is currently what is being discussed for merge, which I believe means just putting a redirect in their place, and a much reduced bit in a list page. Dream Focus 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Dream Focus. It can hardly be considered a merge. It was more like a informal deletion discussion. If it were taken to AFD tey would have likely been deleted because of lack of sources. I objected to the merge, but i t still happened. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing gained by including articles that include little more than a plot summary, myself. AQ says that if the articles had gone through AFD they likely would have been deleted...is that preferable to a merge? Doniago (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all just a little bit ridiculous. As it is, at the top of this talk page as I edit, is the start of a discussion that went on for some months, as to if and how the Enterprise articles should be treated. Since then, many months have passed and the Enterprise articles have been left untouched until I merged them. Editors who complain now have had ample time to actually do something and have declined. It's very easy to object, but not so easy to actually act upon those objections apparently.

Would those asking to keep the articles mind explaining the following;

• If the articles would fail at an AFD, why do they deserve their own article?
• If the articles are merged, and so can be unmerged later, why is this being deemed a deletion?
• What can be done with the articles to make them more than a plot and credits?

It would help greatly to know this before proceeding. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of opinions. On the Star Trek Wikiproject page after another user had suggested merging Voyager episodes, I suggested doing so for Enterprise.

1. Alpha Quadrant helpfully removed the merge tags and suggested I wait till the end of 2011 to suggest it again...
2. David Fuchs suggested merging them all and spinning out those that could be expanded.

On the List of Episodes page for Enterprise I proposed the merge for a second time on the 18 June.

1. Quadrant again suggested leaving it until the end of 2011.
2. IAmTheCoinMan suggested deleting all but the better episode pages.
3. An anonymous IP suggested it was a show of bad faith not to let Alpha Quadrant fix the articles.
4. AkankshaG suggested that the plot summary was useful to see what happened in the episode.
5. Doniago suggested merging all episodes tagged as plot and unimproved for three months.
6. Another anon suggesting that plot summaries are useful.
7. Theo Pardilla suggested... something. I'm not too sure actually, save that they seemed to think my actions were vandalism and that a merge was the same thing as a deletion.
8. Dream Focus suggested I was merging merely because; "You don't get to eliminate an article, simply because you don't like how it is written".

So there appears to be an agreement amongst those that favour a merge that the standalone articles could well go, either merged or deleted. Those against a merge appear to have a variety of opinions, ranging from a far off date to fix the articles, a desire to see more plot summary and that the merge was vandalism or a case of I don't like it. That doesn't spell out a straight forward consensus against to me. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Another bit of input, EEMIV suggested that this was a good merge. Is there no further input from those who wish to unmerge other than to have an expanded plot for each episode? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD seems relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice our Project logo is nominated for deletion

Hello all, someone has nominated our project logo File:Delta-shield.png has been nominated for deletion. I thought you would like to know. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Would appreciate feedback here regarding merging Starfleet ranks and insignia with Starfleet uniforms. [Review of substantive content removal at the former also welcome; please note talk-page prompts there for earlier feedback.] --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, the uniforms article is pretty long and exhaustive. Merging the two would present a problem, would you integrate the insignia into the respective uniform slots, or would you just be tacking on to the bottom of the article? Integration would be a lot of work. I also think that encyclopedia users would be running a search on either one or the other - they'd see an episode and want to know about a person's rank and do a search for that. I'm on the fence - Help me Landru! Akuvar (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What they both need is a more thorough overhaul and perhaps a title change to e.g. Costumes in Star Trek to more strongly emphasize the out-of-universe perspective. They're both a mess, but I think cleanup for them as one piece would be less onerous than cleanup for them separately. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe that several of the images at Starfleet ranks and insignia are under the wrong license. Several of the images are inaccurate depictions made by users and are not copyrighted by Paramount. The first image is under correct license, but the fabric patches and the silver pin are not. They are not at all accurate to the real admiral insignia of the show. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1)

I just noticed that this article is all by itself. There are no articles for Seasons 2-4 (I think there used to be, but they're gone now). And the primary purpose of the article, to provide a reference for what episodes aired in the season, is now taken by List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes. There's a little bit about critical reaction to Season 1 and Awards, but this material can be merged with the main series article. If Wikipedia isn't going to allow articles on each season, then to just have the one article makes things feel incomplete, and as it currently stands, it no longer serves a purpose (and any argument about Season 1 being more notable than the others is in my opinion an NPOV violation since there's plenty to suggest at least 3 and 4 were just as notable in various ways). On the talk page I've suggested the article be deleted. As an IP editor (I am a longtime Wiki editor but am editing as an IP due to issues I've been having with a few editors) I don't feel I can put in an AFD request in these circumstances, nor do I really want to because the WikiProject is better qualified to decide whether the article lives or dies. And if the lack of a Season 2-4 article is more an oversight than a policy decision, then maybe this might get the ball rolling on filling the gaps. So for now my suggestion lives only on the talk page. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some pertinent info that could be salvaged from there for the parent site. While the table of episodes is the same as on the List of episodes page, near as I can tell. Fixblor (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of season articles is that the main article doesn't have to cover everything in detail, as per other TV projects such as Lost or Battlestar Galactica. Other similar pages not existing isn't a good reason to delete or merge, especially when the article itself isn't all that old. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Template:Star Trek

RfC: There's been an ongoing debate for the Template:Star Trek over where to place the movies, join the discussion at Template talk:Star Trek#Top row. Fixblor (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New FAC: Star Trek IV

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is currently a featured article candidate. If you have comments, please chime in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Episode templates on Deep Space 9

I was just doing a little copy editing around the DS9 episodes, and I found that the first and last episode of each season seems to have one of the following templates on them.

• Template:Star Trek DS9 S1
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S2
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S3
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S4
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S5
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S6
• Template:Star Trek DS9 S7

I can't really see any purpose to these templates, though if they are to be used, they should be on every episode, not just the first and last of each season. Personally, I'd say that we'd do a lot better adding a link to the list of episodes on the infobox. Any thoughts? Worm 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the infobox content and navigation is sufficient. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

star trek posters being deleted

File:Startrekgenpost.jpg and File:Star trek nemesis ver2.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 184.144.160.77 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Star Trek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Star Trek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Star Trek until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B)

All of the planet list pages are just about to be deleted, and I've objected because this Wikiproject was not notified. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The consensus to delete as not notable was clear and so I have done the deletions. As requested I have not addressed backlinks nor did I delete redirects. Hopefully this project can find appropriate targets for the redirects which can be found at the following pages: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Note that I am not watching this page so please ping me if you wish me to see something.

I have nominated for deletion or changed the redirects pointing to List of Star Trek planets (A–B). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As the AFD notes, notifying wikiprojects is a nicety, not a requirement. In any case, I’d agree with the reasoning—there’s basically no real-world useful information to put in these articles that isn’t better served being somewhere else, and it’s really just a collection or short plot dumps that isn’t tremendously useful for readers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, these days I'm inclined to think that anyone who wants in-universe Star Trek information (along with a healthy dose of out-of-universe information) on things like planets in the Trek universe would be better served by going to Memory Alpha in any case. DonIago (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Our policies on detail and NOTPLOT don't really enable a useful article on such topics, since there's very little real-world info to buttress them outside of stuff that should be in the episode/film articles in all likelihood. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have revised or removed direct links to the deleted lists. Unfortunately many planet-name redirects to the lists were deleted by user:AnomieBOT III (see [8]), and a few more by user:Liz. I have now checked the backlinks to them all, restoring and re-targeting a few such as Khitomer. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

When do we add biographies to the WikiProject?

What is the project's threshold for including biographical articles about Trek actors? Boneyard90 (talk · contribs) recently added Olivia d'Abo to the project. d'Abo portrayed Amanda Rogers in "True Q" on Next Gen, and I wouldn't think that her single appearance in the franchise would warrant her inclusion herein. Thoughts?

Left to my own judgment, I'd say that for the person to qualify, there should be some discussion of their involvement with the show, not merely a cursory description of their role, but I'll be curious to see what others have to say. DonIago (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that for them to be included they should be significant to the franchise. AKA main-starring cast members like William Shatner are included, people who guested or had minor recurring appearances are not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, we still have to maintain the wikipedia standard of something that is notable, and a single appearance on a show doesn't make a person necessarily notable. There are plenty of actors who have been removed from wikipedia because they just aren't famous or noteworthy. StarHOG (Talk) 16:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek on Wikidata

Dear Wikipedians,

please consider joining the the WikiProject Star Trek on Wikidata. Your help is appreciated 😀 --Shisma (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of Trek articles

I love being a wikipedia editor and I think I have contributed a lot of my personal time to making Star Trek articles better, as most of you have. It really insults me to have to watch for vandalism of these articles. It takes my time away from editing articles and it, well, it wears me out. I often feel like my contributions aren't worth it if random, anonymous people can show up and just ruin an article for a day because they think it is funny. We just had an anonymous editor come in and make changes to about 30 Star Trek articles that all had to be reverted. Let's say a first time user comes to wikipedia and decides to make an edit, would it be so horrible for a pop-up asking them to create an account to show up before allowing the edit? I don't think so. I don't know how many forums I am on for work that mandate an account before you are allowed to post. Sure, some of it is for marketing purposes, but the majority of it is to prevent vandalism. I'd like to see the removal of anonymous posts come up for a vote on wikipedia. StarHOG (Talk) 15:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Village Pump is the appropriate forum to make this kind of site-wide suggestion. I suspect there is a trove of archived discussions at the pump and elsewhere around this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding WP:SEAOFBLUE with Federation starship Enterprise

In the leads of many Star Trek episode pages there are separate links for Starfleet , starship and Enterpise like here Hide and Q or Federation, starship and Enterprise like here . Wouldn't it be better if we used one link which leads to Enterpise, where Federation , starship and Starfleet all have their separate links to their respective pages? I don't want to mass edit if others are against this idea. I think readers should be informed that all those have their own pages but without WP:SEAOFBLUE castorbailey (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To me, given that there's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), phrases like "Starfleet starship Enterprise" or "Federation starship Enterprise" should be linked in their entirety to that article. As you noted, the other terms are all linked within the lead of that article. That said, I think the latter phrasing is vastly preferable to the former, as I believe it's the standard terminology used on the show. The Federation is the government that the E-D represents, not Starfleet. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree castorbailey (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the purpose of a dynamic encyclopedia like wikipedia is that people can click on almost any thing they don't know about and be taken to an article or picture about that thing. Sure, if you know about Trek and are checking these articles out, it may seem like over kill to list Federation, starship, and Enterprise each as a separate link, but I put myself in the absolute layman's shoes, a person who doesn't know anything about nothin', and that person might start reading a synopsis and wonder, "what is the Federation" and even the more basic, "what is a starship?" If they were simply taken to a page about Enterprise, then their questions might not get answered, and it would also make me wonder why we had a page called "Federation" if you aren't sending people there that want to know about it. StarHOG (Talk) 15:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how my suggestion doesn't address this. Sure clicking on "Federation starship Enterprise" wouldn't immediately link you to "Federation" or "starship", but links to both can be found within the first two paragraphs of the linked article. Yes, I suppose it would mean one additional click for those looking for that information, but that seems a minor trade-off for giving relevant articles a cleaner appearance overall. Could you provide more specific examples that might better highlight your concern? DonIago (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. You're not removing the words "Federation" or "starship" from the article, right? You are changing Federation starship Enterprise with Federation starship Enterprise, right? How does this streamline or clean up the appearance of the article? If I am wrong, please correct me, but if I'm right, then all you accomplish is taking away information available with a single click. StarHOG (Talk) 20:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SEAOFBLUE? It specifically advises against having adjacent links to different articles. That is specifically what we're trying to address. DonIago (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course, "when possible", it "advises", it is one of a 100 suggestions to avoid confusing multiple links. Perhaps what we need is to restructure the sentences so the links aren't together, but combining thme in to one link doesn't help our readers understand the ST universe. StarHOG (Talk) 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Following up on my above post, I visited some TOS episode articles and a majority of them open the plot with "The Federation starship Enterprise . . ." (most of them individual links). If you click on USS Enterprise, it immediately says it is a starship, which is linked, so I think you could lose "starship" from all of these right off the bat. Could we lose Federation also? It is, after all, a pretty in-universe description, however, it is not listed anywhere in the oppening of USS Enterprise? StarHOG (Talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This would seem to be an argument for improving the linked article then, as it seems odd that a discussion of a prominent Federation starship wouldn't mention the Federation, does it not? DonIago (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with castorbailey and DonIago. Linking consecutive words results in the problem described in WP:SEAOFBLUE. Wikilinking the whole phrase "Federation starship Enterprise" complies with Wikipedia policy (see MOS:LINK). Single words such as "Federation" or "starship" can be linked individually at a subsequent occurrence on the page. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with castorbailey and DonIago in spirit, though I think there's something of a "middle path" to consider, too. In the example of "Hide and Q", I'd remove "Federation" from the string of adjectives. The Federation is an important concept in-universe but a casual fan or reader doesn't need to be hand-held to the concept in the lede section to understand an episode. If the Federation is a relevant topic plot-wise or development-wise, it'll appear and can be bluelinked in those sections. --EEMIV (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care about the methodology myself; I just don't think we should have three or more consecutive links to different articles. If it were two this thread probably wouldn't exist. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me, especially with others weighing in, that we remove federation and starship and just go with USS Enterprise? I know I originally chimed in against this, but you all have convinced me! StarHOG (Talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of Trekmovie for interviews

Hello! I have started a discussion which might interest the members of this project. It is on the reliability of Trekmovie for interviews. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:StarTrek.com link broken

Bringing this here for more attention: please see the discussion at Template_talk:StarTrek.com_link#Template_broken. In short, startrek.com appears to have changed its episode database URL style, and this has broken the template; the change is not backwards-compatible, so all articles using the template will need to be updated. creffett (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Hello. I thought I could improve the article Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) and bring it up to a similar standard as other articles from season 1.[9] There are reliable sources available to add ratings reviews and production information. The article does not seem any more or less notable than most other Star Trek Enterprise episodes. I thought reliable sources and clear improvements to the article would be enough but apparently it isn't as a simple as reverting the redirect and getting on with improving the article.

Maybe it just needs a few editors from WP:STARTREK to say Keep? Comments at Talk:Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) might be a good idea. Could I get some help please? Anyone? -- 109.76.147.128 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need multiple independent sources covering the subject to demonstrate it should stand alone. Unfortunately, it's a tough episode to search for, given that it's got a very generic sci-fi name, and "Star Trek enterprise" turns up plenty of stuff not about Star Trek: Enterprise, but a cursory search didn't prove that illuminating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I already added reviews and Neilsen ratings and production details (see diff linked above). That's more than many episode articles for the series have. What sense does it make to delete only this one episode from all of season 1? And apparently without ever having asked for input from Project WP:STARTREK. I know a bit about writing, and about editing wiki or Wikipedia, but not so much about the intricate rules and secret handshakes and it is not clear to me what arcane process I'm supposed to go through just to revert/restore the page and be allowed add reliable sources. (The editor who blocked my changes sent me to WP:REFUND and REFUND told me I'd been sent to the wrong place. If they don't understand the rules themselves is it any wonder I find them difficult.) Like many Enterprise episodes I find the premise (a rogue planet that supports life) more interesting than the resulting (hunt!) episode, and it seems about as notable as most other Enterprise episodes.

As I was looking for sources for one episode I found sources for various others, including Rogue Planet. So as a general note for anyone else trying to dig up sources, TrekToday has a list of episode guides, and those pages such as the episode guide for Rogue Planet points point to various others sources, even though only some links are still live, with the help of the Internet Archive you can recover dead links and those dead links point to more sources. The Magazine Rack section of the Internet Archive has a few old issues of Star Trek Communicator (and other magazines) and Star Trek Communicator 143 happens to have some background information on the episode Rogue Planet. (WP:SOURCEACCESS is not a requirement and I could still reference those old magazines, but it's a lot more convenient than going through the old trek magazines I have in storage and it is also means other editors can easily WP:VERIFY.) Even places like Memory Alpha can sometimes throwup usable sources but of course I have to be rinse my brain and write completely new text based on the original source and avoid the in-universe fancruft style, but they usually point towards some real Production information. While I'm at it here are some archive links for Nielsen ratings: Season 1 Seasons 2, 3, 4

There is lots of potential for improvement in the List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes but deleted articles are unlikely to see any improvement. I'm discouraged by prospect of episode articles being arbitrarily deleted like the article for Rogue_Planet_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) was, it was literally the only episode from Season 1 that was deleted, with no consistent approach to remove or improve the season or series as a whole. The extremely selective enforcement of Wikipedia rules and the lack of any input from WP:STARTREK on this single episode delete is baffling. -- 109.77.207.112 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The AFD was Two Merges and one keep, but that is what was decided then. Its not much of consensus, so its just a matter of time before it can be restarted with an adequate level of Wikipedia quality. Starspotter (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, if anything, there are probably a lot more articles for individual episodes of TV shows that should be merged/redirected, so I'm afraid you're not going to get a lot of sympathy from me on this one. "Rogue Planet" is no "Best of Both Worlds", and I feel our efforts should be focused on episodes that are talked about by sources other than those that already focus on Star Trek-related material. Notability is not inherited, and just because the franchise as a whole is notable doesn't mean every component of it is also notable. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that there are a lot of editors who would delete all but the few most clearly notable episode articles, and I don't like it but it least it shows some consistent thought and editors who at least believe they are making a better encyclopaedia. But deleting one single episode out of 98 episodes, is arbitrary and thoughtless. (If you want to delete articles because the episode was bad there are plenty more bad episodes to choose from.)

It eventually occurred to me that moving the article to DRAFT space Draft:Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) would give me the best chance to make some progress and improve the article. -- 109.76.206.200 (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't cast aspersions on other editors' motives. It may be that they fully intend(ed) to nominate other articles as well. I am, of course, assuming that you didn't discuss this with the nominating editor.

In any case, I have my doubts that this episode received any significant coverage, but I'm certainly not going to tell someone not to work on improving an article if they have their heart set on it. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cast aspersions or speculate on anyone motives, I criticized their actions as poorly thought out and inconsistent. I criticized the failure to see opinions from project Star Trek when deleting a Star Trek releated article. I could cast aspersions about people who delete articles in areas they were not interested in improving anyway, but I didn't do that before. Most episodes of any series receive about the same amount of coverage, the best and the worst receive a little more coverage than that. No matter how you define "significant" if applied with any consistency it would be cause to delete a whole lot more than one episode out of 98, (and a whole lot of episodes out of 700 ). I criticized the actions not the people.

Draft:Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) is a work in progress, (compare it to when proposed for deletion[10]) I think there's more I can do but I should at least be able to bring up to a level similar to most other episodes in the series. I am aware that ultimately someone might still come along and decide later to delete most of the episode articles, but there is no need to delete random episode articles. -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Martok

Just a heads up for anyone that did not notice the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote. Starspotter (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The deletion request has been relisted due to complaints of voter canvassing.

As an anon editor I don't want to get stuck deep into the wiki-lawyering but it looks like this is will require deep understanding of the rules and stronger justifications to keep the article.

See AfD listing: Martok -- 109.76.211.106 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering whether canvassing would be raised as a concern. DonIago (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

They did seem to accept that posting concerns about Star Trek articles to Project Star Trek was reasonable, but apparently there was other canvassing beyond that they were complaining about. -- 109.78.203.76 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't referring specifically to posting here, though I do feel the first message posted was non-neutral, and it made me less inclined to weigh in than I might have been otherwise. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE

I'd just like to get some clarification on the use of DISPLAYTITLE in Star Trek articles.

Based on the an error category Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unnecessary manual displaytitle and the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template documentation it appears that this was an old template and no longer needed for articles with standardized consistent naming such as Star Trek episode articles. (As I understand it there now exist automatic features to take care of the minor formatting details.)

I removed this template from articles and got no negative feedback and gradually went on to remove it from most of the Enterprise episode articles and a few other articles here and there. I'm double checking now, to ask and make sure that there are not any special cases or edge cases that I should be aware of?

As best I can tell {{DISPLAYTITLE}} should be removed from all Star Trek episode articles. -- 109.79.68.55 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, the infobox until fairly recently couldn't handle the italicization of the titles, unlike other infobox templates. This has now been fixed and the infobox can now handle it. As such, the usage of {{Italic title}}, {{Italic dab}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} is not needed and should be removed as unneeded clutter. There is no rush however, so just remove it when you edit something else. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming and providing extra detail. As I said I've already removed it from most the Enterprise articles but I wanted to be absolutely sure because I will probably gradually remove them from DS9 articles as I go. Of course I welcome and encourage other editors to clean them out too, there is no shortage of articles in need of work. -- 109.76.144.63 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)