Talk:List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes

Creation
I definitely don't think this article needs it own page. The shorts don't warrant a separate page, they too can be included under the episodes section of the parent article, and it's been agreed on a pretty strong consensus that two seasons is no longer the standard on which to split,. --  Alex TW 02:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any consensus on when to split at this point honestly. We just need to do what's best. I agree that the shorts shouldn't have their own page, but including all of their information (which will grow over the next few months) plus full season episode lists at the already pretty big series article seems like too much for me. Not too much that a split happen, but still at a point where a split will be useful. Anyway, it was a bold change and I am happy to discuss it further. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please contribute your thoughts here? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I can add much. I feel as though I'd have to agree with, that the main series article is already quite large and that over the next few months (presumably through next March) a section devoted to the spin-off series will only grow larger. Worth noting that After Trek, which also airs on CBS All Access has its own article. My personal editing philosophy is "Contribute. Let go." I try and avoid getting involved in endless policy discussions and devote my time and energy contributing in ways I find more useful. Maybe it makes me a weak or ineffectual editor for not going toe to toe with others over our dissenting opinions but...oh well. I will say that I'd be curious to hear the opinions of more editors. Overall, I think my edits speak for themself in regards to what I think. – BoogerD (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Star Trek: Discovery article is already over 135 kB after this split! Looking at WP:TOOBIG it notes that at 60 kB the article probably should be divided, and at over 100 kB it almost certainly should be divided. If the episodes aren't divided out, then what? With another season dropping in a few weeks, the article is only going to get longer. Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TOOBIG is referring to readable prose size, and if you look at that measurement for Star Trek: Discovery you'll see that it is only at 38kB which falls under the "Length alone does not justify division" category. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Though by the time you add in this page, you are pushing the 50 kB point - and it's only going to get longer. Put it in now, to pull it out again in a few months? Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point I feel that the shorts need to be split-off to their own article, now that the show is out and people keep confusing it with Discovery (they are technically two different series). If we make that split, I would be happy to merge the episode list back into the main article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are they technically two different series? They are all Discovery shorts, not other series shorts. They have the same production credits, including Bryan Fuller. They use the Star Trek:Discovery theme and graphics in the credits. They show USS Discovery in the opening credits and note that Star Trek:Discovery is a trademark of CBS. Meanwhile CBS themselves say that the shorts link them to Discovery link. I think it's too soon to conclude they are more than part of Star Trek:Discovery. Either way, we need to be consistent. We can't be adding the Shorts to this page, at the same time you are trying to remove the reference to them from the main page. As such, if we keep the shorts here, I'll restore that text you removed from the main page. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I feel strongly one way or the other. I suppose if I was forced to choose, I'd agree with splitting and giving Short Treks it's own article. For what its worth, I created a draft for the series many months ago and it can be found here: Draft:Star Trek: Short Treks. – BoogerD (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi just noticed this (thanks Boogerd); I had previously split the page off and then adapted the draft into the new article. I think its time to split it off imo as it has outgrown the list. Cheers! Starspotter (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please note that you need to wait for a discussion to finish before moving ahead with your edits; I have restored all of the relative pages for the time being. Also, when it is time to make the separate Short Treks page we will be deleting the mainspace redirect and moving the draft version to its place, not copy-and-pasting as you have been doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Though around here, what does "finish" mean? Shouldn't that also mean User:Adamstom.97 that the text you removed Star Trek: Discovery should be reverted? :) I'm relative neutral on whether we split the shorts. Though it might look silly years from now though, if this only ever is on the 4 between-seasons Discovery webisode-like items. Has there been any indication anywhere of these things having a bigger life? Nfitz (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, because it was your WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Exactly the same here - the bold split was reverted and thus the discussion. I, for one, agree with the split; a very similar case is Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot, as a separate article for a short spinoff. --  Alex TW 03:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that there doesn't seem to be much opposition to a split, and that as such, I think one can deem the discussion finished. To clarify matters, I'll withdraw any objection I may have to splitting it, in order to bring this to a closure. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Length of short episodes
I see a user has removed a column of episode lengths from the shorts, with the rather brief edit comment "unnecessary". Typically if lengths vary considerably we document length in articles for individual episodes - but that is not an option here. I see no reason, not to add the episode length, and no discussion of not doing so at Template talk:Episode list or Template:Episode table - only descriptions on how to do it. I'm not sure why one would consider episode length unnecessary when the far less useful "production code" seems to plague so many episode lists! Does anyone have any thoughts about this, before I restore this what I consider to be an unnecessary deletion? Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with the inclusion of production codes too, so try not to assume what I think. Is there support in the documentation, or at least a great multitude of other articles that include episode lengths that can support your argument? --  Alex TW 23:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No assumptions here - and though I think such codes are unnecessary, general consensus is that they can be there. For episode length - what harm is done by putting the information there? What is gained by removing the information? Unlike episode summaries, it adds no extra lines to the table. With no standard episode length, the information is of interest. Where should such information go otherwise? Most shows air in a standard time slot and vary little. (Hmm in writing this comment, I'm interested to notice that Discovery episodes themselves vary a lot more than I was aware, with Vaulting Ambition less than 37 minutes, and Battle at the Binary Stars only 38 minutes, despite running in a standard 60-minute time slot.). Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , in the prose section before the table. "Episodes vary between MIN and MAX minutes each", with a source to back this up. (Also as a sidenote, "Battle at the Binary Stars" and all further episodes did not air in any timesplot, they were released directly on CBSAA.) --  Alex TW 02:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose that works for a series with two episodes. But how do you handle longer series? (obviously I'm referring to markets where Discovery is primarily broadcast, rather than streamed - CBSAA doesn't even carry Discovery at all in some markets - although this isn't particularly germane to this discussion - other than me pondering that perhaps timings should be added to Season 1 as well). Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The shorts are only four episodes. There's no need for the length of all of them, only the smallest and the largest. The regular episodes don't need a length time, their span is already covered in the parent article infobox. --  Alex TW 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What harm is done by putting the information here? Can you point to some guidance or even discussion on this? All you've provided so far is "I don't like it". Nfitz (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes: WP:TRIVIA. The length of the episode does not further the understanding of the episode itself. Can you point to well-established examples of other articles that include the episode time? (However, since you're only here to attack anyone that disagrees with you through edit summaries, I realize that you're not actually here to discuss this at all.) --  Alex TW 23:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm what? Where? Why the personal attack and failure to assume good faith? I've done nothing here to deserve this - even if I'm wrong, I don't deserve such treatment. Please apologize User:AlexTheWhovian. And please point to any policy that relates to this. I see nothing at WP:TRIVIA discussing this, nor do I see how episode lengths are trivia. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "There may also be WP:OWN issues". When you want to discuss civilly, I'll be here. Cheers. --  Alex TW 07:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it uncivil to express concerns about ownership issues. You spend a lot of time here, cleansing Wikipedia of content that you've deemed inappropriate, in the absence of guidelines. And when asked to point to relevant guidelines and discussions to support your action, you obfuscate. It's isn't uncivil to point out that there may be an issue here. It is however uncivil to say "you're only here to attack anyone that disagrees with you". That is no why I am here. I am here to improve the project - and in personally attacking me rather than discussing the issue you have blatantly violated one of the central pillars of the project.
 * Point to the relevant guidelines and consensus. I've looked as well, and I've only found ambiguous discussions - ironically the only good discussion I've seen on the issue is for quite a similar issue at Talk:List of Vikings episodes where no one else was opposed to having in the episode length except you, and the conclusion seemed to be We hadn't reached a consensus, it was just a suggestion based on Alex's preference ... before the discussion devolved into a debate about column widths. It looks to me like you talked at everyone else until they gave up, rather than an actual consensus being reached. But you are probably more familiar with this than me - can you point to a better example? Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek: Short Treks
Thoughts on moving Draft:Star Trek: Short Treks to the mainspace, now that it's concluded? -- / Alex /21  05:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much weight my opinion has but, yes, I would support a move into mainspace. – BoogerD (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any of the shorts so have not really been following the draft, but if you guys think it is in a good enough place then I say go for it. I'll check up on it at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Season 3
Per MOS:TVUPCOMING, exceptions do occur, but only when A possible exception to a section header being created for the season before an episode table is ready, is if substantial information for the season, that is not duplicated from the lead, is available. Two sentences it not "substantial information", and can easily be included in the lead. Nothing states that it cannot be. The spirit of the rule is to not make sections without enough information for a table. If in doubt, the guideline should be followed while it's agreed that exceptional circumstances exist in this case. -- / Alex /21  06:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it can fit in the lead, but it doesn't need to. The rule is not meant to stop sections like this, it is meant to stop sections with a single line saying a season has been ordered when no new information is going to come up. Putting it in the lead is silly, and not how this rule has ever been interpretted in my experience. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we including production information here at all? The renewal should be cited in the lead while the production information should be in the main article, just like we've been doing it for years. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is season-specific information, the main article is just an overview for things that apply across the whole series. Until a season-specific article exists, this is the equivalent place. I know it seems weird because the page is called 'List of episodes', not 'List of seasons', but that is how it is always approached for series that I have seen. The alternative is to have sections that are all generic things plus season 3-specific, which is weird, and we are just going to have to go through and take most of that out when it is time for the season article anyway. Why not save the trouble and put pertinent season-specific info here, in the 'Season 3' section? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As its name implies, this is simply a "list of episodes" and should just list the episodes. Any production information should be in the main article until a season specific article is created at which time both the season's episode list and any season specific information from the main article should be moved there. That's how articles are split out. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the Season 3 section should be removed until something substantial such as an episodes table can be placed there. The current information belongs in the main article itself not the list of episodes page. Esuka (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is this series different from any other? If we have already split out season articles and have info for a season that does not yet have an article, we put it in the season section of the episode list. That is how it has always been done, it does not violate TVUPCOMING, and there is no reason to change that practice now. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that this series was already different from any other, by having a section without a table and a raw-code series overview table with home media dates in it. I personally haven't seen that done before in many articles; the case supplied by TVUPCOMING is where significant information is available. -- / Alex /21  11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What "raw-code series overview table with home media dates in it"? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The table at Star Trek: Discovery. It's a raw-code series overview table with home media dates in it. I'm not overly worried over it, it can remain there as far as I care, but it's something unique that's been introduced into articles. -- / Alex /21  07:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Length. Shorts.
I was wondering how long the episodes are. Bet others will be too.

I saw “Star Trek Shorts” in the Okrand article (as a link). That phrase does not (currently) appear in this article.

MBG02 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Star Trek: Short Treks? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In 2018 he developed the language for the Kelpien race in the third Short Treks episode "The Brightest Star". MBG02 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it sounds like you are talking about Star Trek: Short Treks. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)