Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going live[edit]

How much more is needed before the article goes live? It looks like it meets GNG to me. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it probably meets GNG at the moment, but there is always debate for TV series since they are so similar to film articles which usually should not be in the mainspace before filming begins. TV articles technically don't need to wait until then, especially if they have an official series order and work has begun on them like this one, but I still like to err on the side of caution. This is probably a good candidate for going to the mainspace earlier due to the coverage we already have and the interest there is from the public to read about this topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it meets GNG, I believe we can successfully defend it at AFD. I willing to move it myself, but I don't want to do it if you'd rather wait a little longer, as you're doing most of the work. Btw, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) is already getting 2-3 times the page views as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (the book series), so we might as well look at moving the book series to a disambiguated title now. BilCat (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely all for moving the book series now, and once that is sorted I think it will be fine to move this draft to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moves proposed at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)#Requested move 12 September 2020
Per WP:TVSERIES: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network or streaming provider". Its not been scheduled, so the draft is not ready for promotion. Don't invoke GNG when we have a type-specific guideline to follow instead. There is very little different comparing this series to any other which gets a production announcement but not yet a release announcement. It has not received any particular increased level of coverage than any other. -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG can overide type-specific guidelines in cases where the article otherwise meets notability requirements. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we're close. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Did someone die during the production phase? There is no special circumstance here which would make this show in any way special. TVSERIES are not notable just for going into early production. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the age of Covid and BLM, it might happen. BilCat (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS. BilCat (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSERIES is talking about pilot announcements and articles with otherwise very little detail, this article clearly is not that. Also, if CBS All Access announced tomorrow that the series was cancelled then I would still support moving this to the mainspace as there is clearly enough coverage here already and more to come either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it'd barely be a short paragraph in the Discovery article about a failed spin-off. -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely support moving it even if it were cancelled as well, in the same vein as Confederate (TV series). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederate (TV series); one of the first !votes stated I don't see how WP:NFF can override WP:GNG, which this meets handily. -- /Alex/21 04:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and WP:BOLDly moved to the mainspace since this clearly meets WP:GNG and there is general support for the move at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds#Requested move 12 September 2020. This will also hopefully help move along that conversation. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The longest pilot-to-series pickup ever[edit]

See "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, 'the Longest Pilot-to-Series' Pickup Ever, Returns to TOS' Episodic Roots"

Granted, it's with a totally different cast and crew, and it's really a spin-off of STD, but it's an interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps we can include the quote by Henry Alonso Myers, an executive producer, in the article. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Added - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The addition is well written, better than I.could have done. BilCat (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's a cute line, but is it accurate? lot of 50s/60s shows have been reworked/rebooted, i'm wondering if some other show like the fugitive might actually be LONGER? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be accurate, we aren't stating it as fact. And I don't think that example is really the same thing as what has happened here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's not about Star Trek itself being rebooted, but the failed initial pilot, "The Cage", finally being made into a series with those characters. BilCat (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fugitive was not meant as an example of the full scenario. i just cited that as one of the many 50s/60s shows to be REBOOTED; i am asking whether there is not a single one of them which also started with a failed/reworked pilot, which a recent reboot may have restored. it seems likely imho. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From reading Television pilot, something similar has occurred before (see The Paul Lynde Show), but never over such a long period of time. Note that both the comment and the pilot article are in the context of American television practices, which are very unique, and so there might be other examples from other countries. BilCat (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my money's on The Man from Galveston -- coincidentally starring Jeffrey Hunter -- to someday show up as a "failed pilot" reboot. but yeah, i'm not finding many actual examples other than paul lynde and happy days.
an all in the family reboot with meathead named "dickie" would be cool....;) 66.30.47.138 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed move request[edit]

There is a closed page-move request presently at Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection) that affected this page title. Just FYI for editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Horak as Hemmer[edit]

Bruce Horak has been named to the cast as an Andorian officer named Hemmer. He needs added to the cast list. ekedolphin (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horak was a guest star. He was only credited in the episodes in which he appeared. He should actually be removed. Zelani (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence to Horak being a guest star is that he appears out of order among the secondary characters: Bush, Chong, Gooding, Navia, Olusanmokun... Horak. Zelani (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horak was a guest star in the second season but he was credited as one of the main cast members in the first season. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise refs[edit]

Hey, all -- as the watchers and contributors for this page stumble into production or commentary material relevant to the Enterprise itself, please consider pinging me here, or adding them to the article or talk page at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). I've already scooped up a thing or two from the SNW main article -- thank you! --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary edits[edit]

Hi. I recently added some details about the plot summaries for "Children of the Comet" and "Ghosts of Illyria", which I felt were appropriate clarifications — (1) that the "Shepherds" were threatening to destroy Enterprise if it continued trying to interfere with the "destined" course of the comet, and (2) that the reason Pike rejected Number One's resignation was because he considered her the best first officer in Starfleet and didn't care if she was an Illyrian. These additions, however, were reverted on the grounds that they were "unnecessary details" — a view I strongly disagree with. Rather than simply revert the reversion and risk sparking an edit war, I would welcome feedback from other editors (including, but not limited to, Adamstom.97). Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summaries for TV need to be below 200 words and kept to a bare minimum, if the detail is not necessary then it should be excluded. they threaten to destroy Enterprise if it tries to interfere with the comet's destiny does happen in the episode and is important to the experience of watching the episode, but you don't need to state that to convey the episode's plot to new readers. What's important for our purposes is that the shepherds appear, that they believe the comet is an ancient arbiter of life, and that Enterprise gets around them. Similarly, Pike refuses to accept her resignation, calling her the best first officer in the fleet and saying he doesn't care where she is from does happen in the third episode but we don't need to spell out all of those details for the reader here, what is important for our brief plot summary is that Pike refuses to accept her resignation and she questions whether he would have done so if she had not done a good job as an officer. Plot summaries do not need to break down the minutiae of each scene and conversation, especially when they need to be so short. I can point to plenty of examples in the three summaries that we have here where the important information from the episode is conveyed without the specific details from the scenes, including Pike and his crew rescue Number One from captivity which uses one short line to cover a major sequence in the first episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the twelfth star trek series, not the 11th.[edit]

According to the wikipedia spinoffs page, this is the 12th star trek series, not the 11th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_spin-offs

Am I missing something? Or shall we correct this page? OnTheWaySomewhere (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short Treks doesn't count as a full series, it is a companion shorts series. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dedications[edit]

at the end of SO2E01 there was a dedication... "For Nichelle who was first through the door and showed us the stars. Hailing frequencies forever open..."

Q: should such dedications be assembled into a section in main article for series, or, alternatively associated with the episode in which it appears?

Howard from NYC (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there's a consistent precedent for this, specifically. My own preference would be to add a "This episode is dedicated to" sentence to an appropriate paragraph in the season's article. —ADavidB 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek:_Strange_New_Worlds&oldid=1207145927"