Talk:List of Star Trek regions of space

Page history
This list was created by merging four articles following discussion at Articles for deletion/Badlands (Star Trek) and Articles for deletion/Delphic Expanse. The other articles were Neutral zone (Star Trek) and Briar Patch (Star Trek), each of which seemed to fit as it was already a brief list.

This article List of Star Trek regions of space gives additional context, distinguishing one area from another. It also protects the articles from deletion to some extent, by securing notability, since as it is sufficient that the concept (i.e. locations) is sufficient; it is not necessary for notability to be demonstrated for each item in the list. See the AFDs above for a little more info along these lines. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasons for merging

Merge in Sector 001
The article is a few sentences long and would fit perfectly in this newly created article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that might come up. ✅ - Fayenatic (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Bajoran wormhole
Doesn't have any notability, and will finish the sector consolidation stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't merged Bajoran wormhole here, because it is not a "region of space" in the same way that the others are. If the only alternative is deletion, I'd overlook that, because I think it needs to be kept.
 * However, as an alternative, what about merging it to Deep Space Nine (space station), which is about the main setting of the series? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, the Wormhole is so massive, and in one spot, I think it would constitute a region of space. Besides, the Space station article probably wouldn't be the right place to put it, so I again propose putting it here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Seem Right...
"There is also a second barrier at the core of the Milky Way, which was first revealed in the motion picture Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Being the only encounter ever shown, the only known reference is the 'Great Barrier'. This energy barrier at the core was thought to be impenetrable like the one at the edge of the galaxy; however, it was revealed that only mankind's natural fear of the unknown was keeping them from entering it.'"

This paragraph seems to contradict or fails to mention the 4th-season Next Generation episode The Nth Degree, in which the Enterprise-D traveled to "the center of the galaxy." Miqrogroove (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What also doesn't seem right is where is the Charlie and Foxtrot Quadrants? They are never mentioned but the alphabet goes Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta, Foxtrot and then Gamma. THREE are missing and no reference to them in the article exists. And never-mind the quadrant term seems to indicate there are only FOUR such places! Poetic licence? Charlie, Foxtrot and Echo Quadrants don't have the same ring to them as Gamma? --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:310F:EF71:8471:F80D (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a reference to Greek letters not the phonetic alphabet Shimonnyman (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * TNG is not the only other official mention of the barrier at the center of the galaxy that's missing from the article. In both Star Trek V and the animated 1973 TAS(!) episode The Magicks of Megas-tu, the Enterprise travels to the center of the galaxy, encountering a mysterious force field. Beyond it, they find a perceived devil (Lucifer) in The Magicks of Megas-tu, and a perceived God in Star Trek V. Both turn out as something else in the end. --2003:EF:1704:7205:99ED:8946:E187:2C71 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Mutara Nebula, anyone?
Am I the only person who thinks it's odd that "Mutara Nebula" redirects to this page and there is nothing on the subject to found here?__209.179.93.170 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This edit therefore seems mistaken. That editor does not seem to be active any more, so I have gone ahead and reverted the redirect back to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan instead. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

THE Delta Quadrant
Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages uses Star Trek's Delta Quadrant as an example... but Delta Quadrant redirects to the Galactic quadrants section of the article instead of The Delta Quadrant section specifically, while the piped links to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space#Delta_Quadrant get stuck at the top of List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space because the section has been renamed List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space#The_Delta_Quadrant. i'm not sure whether editing this article or the Manual of Style is the better choice to fix/avoid broken links.

i'll link Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages to here so any discussion all happens in one place.

--71.121.143.197 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The headings shouldn't have "The" in them. It's not our style, and here it's even inconsistent with the rest of the subheadings under the same heading. Avoiding unneeded junk in headings is just how we write here; e.g. the main section is "Galactic quadrants" not "Star Trek's galactic quandrats", or "The Star Trek galactic quadrants", or "Galactic quadrants in Star Trek". It unnecessary verbiage.  I'm surprised that MOS:HEADING doesn't address leading-"The" directly, but in article after article you just don't see an unnecessary leading "The".  It's kept for titles of published works (The Hobbit, not Hobbit).  Basically, WP:THE is the controlling guideline, because we do section headings in essentially the same style as titles. It doesn't mean there can never be a "The" (even some of our article titles have one), but there needs to be a really good reason for it.  Here, there's not one. The thing to do, if the Trek usage in virtually always "the Delta Quadrant" in running text, would be to use that form in first sentence in the subsection.  Readers familiar with our work know we drop a leading "The" in headings, so this will not surprise them in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is unrelated to the disambiguation page style. It's related to section heading naming (as SMCCandish pointed out) and linking to sections from redirects: Help:Section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Briar Patch
What is the source for the assumption that Klach D'Kel Brakt / Briar Patch in Insurrection and Enterprise are different regions? It is also referenced by Odo in DS9. All online wikis etc (including Memory Alpha) I could find present only one place of this name. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 13:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance of Only Fictional Notability; Reduction of the Subject to Quadrants
All of this article's content is reporting the metes and bounds of a fictional universe without properly defining itself as such, which fictional universe is WP:N notable given a tremendous number of people elaborate upon, record, and follow the Roddenberry legacy creations from that in the 1960s unto the 2020s; there are dozens of published books recording the fictional universe. Most articles within that context represent themselves properly as depictions of a fictional universe that is notable in that sense. Were a fictional universe encyclopedia of in-universe facts to be sought, I think Memory Alpha suffices for Star Trek and its progeny. All this said, Star Trek and its major themes are notable by standards here, but I would suggest merging and reducing the |Star Trek regions of space| article to the four quadrants of quadrants of the galaxy, as they have have earlier credit and empirical reality, to an article along the lines of |Divisions of the Galaxy|. The rest (besides dividing the galaxy into four pie pieces) is better served in a wiki like Memory Alpha that preserves details relevant to fictional universe's specific elaboration, as Memory Alpha does. But Roddenberry's (and, importantly, his predecessors and successors') division of the galactic disk of the Milky Way into four quadrants, in which Earth occupies the nominal Alpha, is notable enough to be a Wikipedia topic, as an empirical interpretation of the physical universe. As needed, I'd be happy to cite some secondaries not associated with Star Trek that follow on the concept of making quadrants of our galaxy, although the earliest and easiest prior to Roddenberry is Isaac Asimov in his later Foundation books. I prefer to see those elements of Star Trek episodic and serial history that coincide with actual astrophysical or cosmological theories or phenomena be repatriated into science and real world rather than languish in fiction. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)