Talk:Cultural influence of Star Trek

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ForestGreen77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Parodies
I moved this section here from Star Trek. Feel free to revert if you found that a stupid thing to do :) 130.241.18.31 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was a good thing to do. However, it's now getting so long that it unbalances this article.  Let's summarise it here, and move it off into its own article.  Everyone who likes it had better then put it on their watchlist, as it's bound to get nominated for deletion. Fayenatic london (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Change of proposal: let's summarise it here, referring to other sites which collect such primary data e.g. Memory Alpha's multiple pages on the subject, and delete it from Wikipedia. I've been learning that a detailed list of primary sources like this is non-notable and original research and therefore against Wikipedia policy. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I went ahead and added a citation to the section to help with the original research aspect, I already had it all looked up for another article, hope you don't mind. Stardust8212 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just watching an old episode of "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" on YouTube when I was reminded of the existence of the alien crook Kneemoi. Since her name and home planet (Roddenberry) are beyond-obvious references, I thought it probably should be in this list, too. Feel free to delete. --KyrieEleison (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CITATION CITATION CITATION
Another use of the semi-new and admin-happy CITATION NEEDED tag was added to the line "Star Trek is one of the most culturally influential television shows". Couldn't this be justified in the article itself based on the extensive list of Star Trek spawns? Far too often, wikipedia demands a single piece of external hard evidence to back up a claim - in this case, one needs to be the judge for himself. I think it's self explanatory. I would like a discussion started from this. What citation does the demander have in mind. People on wikipedia seem to not bother trying to resolve any problems on the discussion board, they'd rather submit a complaint when someone changes something. Dkkicks 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Has Odd Phrasing
The opening sentence of this article reads:

''Star Trek is one of the most culturally influential television shows – and perhaps the most influential science fiction TV series – in history. ''

The parenthetical phrase about the "most influential science fiction TV series" is a subset of "influential television shows". As a result, the emphatic effect is not accurate and sounds, at best, a bit puzzling.

It's rather like saying "Not only is Bill Gates the richest person in the world, he is perhaps the richest geek in the US."

DanniGrrl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.7.199 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2007
 * No, it's like "Gates is one of the richest people in the world, and perhaps...". Fayenatic london (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

odd sentence
This article says there are "at least 120 video games contain "Star Trek" in their titles, mostly soundtracks (with no Grammy nominations) and audio books but also Klingon language instruction". I'm not sure I understand this as neither soundtracks, audio books, or anything dealing with Klingon language instruction would normally be considered a video game... Was there a part of that sentence that somehow got cut off of the beginning or did two points in the list get mashed together somehow? I'm not sure what to change it to to fix it. 75.177.179.253 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the problem. Fix it up then request a citation. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the change, back in July; I've restored "120 CDs and 40 video games" and improved the sentence. The source is stated as Forbes, though without a detailed citation. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:STTOScrew2.jpg
Image:STTOScrew2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Split
The top half of this page really is a fantastic history page and no so much a cultural influences page. I think we should split off the first 3 sections to make a nice history page. Oldag07 (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Music
It may be obvious to many, but there may be some who do not recall the intro music. Could someone create a sample in .ogg for listening/ recognizing? Kristinwt (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Firsts
If TOS did not do it first the n the page should not make that claim, nor should it claim origionality for doing things that had been done before. Star Treks 'legacy' should be conextualied to explaiiinportance, but not to overemphersise its inportance outsiode then US.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)]]


 * Agreed. Wonder if it would be an idea to create a separate section on cultural predecessors of Star Trek moving all the business about Quatermass, Thunderbirds, etc. into a section of its own.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure that is a good idea. It belittles many shows into little more then adjuncts of Trek (and still overemphasising the show, we judge this shows importance by how it compares to Trek). A page about TV firsts might be better (with no undue influence by Trek). My preference (given the fact that very few pages actually exists about how important a given show was) is to merge this with the history page (which in truth much of this page is anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]


 * Not sure what you mean by the history page. Is that the main Star Trek page or another history of Trek page or a history of TV page, or the Trek:TOS page?
 * This page has a lot of material split off from the general Trek franchise page and there would definitely be some resistance to putting it back.
 * However, your concerns are very legitimate ones. Such a section would at least have to be worded fairly carefully to avoid implying the other shows are 'merely' predecessors of Trek. The idea should rest for now.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have said merge it with a new history page, with the remaing material beng places into the Star Trek page (perhaps it all should be).

No discussion on Influence on Technology
I think one big topic that this article fails to discuss thoroughly is the influence that this show has had on modern technology. From what I've read there is only one sentence that deals with this: Fictional devices in the show have also been claimed as inspirations for actual devices like mobile phones (communicator) and medical technology (hypospray). It is ironic to see that the main article has more to say on the matter than this one. There are even entire shows (such as this one) devoted to the matter. The technological impact on our modern lives by the show has been seriously understated in this article. --Stux (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The jet injector was invented in 1960. How did the hypospray inspire it?--121.216.18.138 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nasa And Other Organiaztion Paid Tribute To Star Trek?
Where did you guys hear that? I looked all over the internet and couldn't find that, where's the link to that? Show me the link, otherwise that should be erased! And Also WHo Said That DForbes Said ONly Star Wars has had a significan amount of success? That should be deleted too! and also about tnhe Vulcan alberta and it's monument i looked for that also on the internet and couldn't find signs of that either, so inless someone show me proof of those, it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.210.58 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
i found this extreamily weird when i got this page... were is the grox from the maxis game SPORE? i mean they are compleatily based of them (The in game data for the badges you get from killing/befreinding them says 'groB' spell it backwards and it's 'Borg' plus they are also mechanical. AND they have more advanced tech then any other empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.19.24 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who
"The first television series with comparable story-line and set-up to Star Trek (aside from the more generic genre rival Doctor Who) was the 1990s series Babylon 5." "Only Star Wars has had as significant an influence as a science fiction and pop culture phenomenon." Why is Doctor Who dismissed (or just plain unacknowledged) in such a way throughout the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.18.138 (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As the articel says its becasue Dr Who's premise and execution was disimilar enough from Treks to mean that whilst they are rivals its a pelopenesian war rivlary. They were in copetition, but in differnt ways. The only exception is the second line, is there any real evidacen that Dr Who has had less cultural impact then Tek?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Offhand I would say Doctor Who's impact in British countries may be as great as that as Star Trek, but not so much worldwide, and as noted it has far less similarities to Trek than babylon 5. Slatersteven, you have lots of spelling mistakes!--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DAICON III and IV Opening Animations
Before someone gets UNDO happy, the rational: Both made in the early 80's in Japan, so you have a foreign country that is aware of Star Trek and deem it important enough to add it to an amateur production. In the DAICON III opening, as best as I can tell, it may be the ONLY non Japanese show referred to. Of course any one can clearly see it is the Enterprise. The DAICON openers are a kind of theme or cult object to fans of Sci-Fi and fantasy, supported by fact that the creators did it during their spare time and money, literally the ultimate sacrifice toward ones interests (obsession? ;)  ). Star Wars, Alien, and Gerry Andersons UFO & Thunderbirds are also non-Japanese shows referred to in DIACON IV opening. In later years Rick Sternbach, the illustrator for ST:TNG added numerous Japanese Anime refernces, being a big anime fan himself. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amature production are not notable, more over we would need a source for this, not your opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally no, an amateur production is not notable, but in this context it is very relevant. The film is here, The DAICON IV opening animation, and more on it can be readily found.  And it is not an opinion, I stated facts.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But has it received third party coverage (IE is it notable) and has the star trek link been noted by third party RS? just existing is not enough. Yes it is an opinion, it is not a fact. It might be the enterprise, or it might not be, what have the makers said?Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As in those who made the DAICON short? Here is a page on Gainax detailing the shorts, Here is one focusing on the shorts, and the FULL version of Daikon 3 (not the intro version), See 3:54, Enterprise (first nacelle version too!  Intro is later nacelle type)., and to round off here is another review for JPhile.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A blog is not RS. As to the rest not sure, but I woujld ask others to comment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't a blog be a reliable source? Don't respected editors also write blogs?  I do agree the blog will need to pass quality standards, but JPhile appears to be a quality publication. Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs can be RS if the b,og is by a recogniser expert in the field and it can be demonstrated he wrote there blog. There is a major prolbom wiht hte blos, it uses wikipdia as a source. Also see this [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

treknie
This article is about (I thought) the cultural impact of Star trek. As far as I am aware the conflict between Trekie and trekker is one that has not had a cultural impact outside of star trek fandom. I therfore fail to see why this is in the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's actually a way better objection than the one in your edit summary which was "no one cares". Since the nationally theatrically released documentary "Trekkies" talks about it, certainly someone cares outside of fandom. OK, you've convinced me to delete it.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory
I am surprised there is no mentioning of the TV series The Big Bang Theory here. It is not only very popular with more than a hundred episodes, but also references Star Trek in nearly every one of them. They're playing Klingon Boggle for FSM's sake! Is there a reason it is not mentioned and if not, could anyone more eloquent and knowledgeable than me add it? Thank you! Berlioz --93.203.42.95 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cultural influence of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pluralism.org/interfaith/twin_cities/practices/secular_bible_study
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009230425/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Social/star_trek/SH7.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Social/star_trek/SH7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural influence of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314091958/http://lame.lut.fi/starwreck/ to http://lame.lut.fi/starwreck/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cultural influence of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315081605/http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep00/forbidden_planet.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep00/forbidden_planet.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004114439/http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/startrekmyths2.htm to http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/startrekmyths2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219181045/http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/soaps/british.html to http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/soaps/british.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cinetopiatheaters.com/hype/movie1/2008/12/inside-look-at-star-trek-with-jj-abrams_18.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Music, revisited
I'm surprised the band S.P.O.C.K isn't on the music list. Personally, I'm still waiting for some band to name themselves "Roberta Lincoln Overdrive." -User:DanTD (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --98.51.11.27 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see it has not been nominated for speedy deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)