Talk:Star Trek fan productions/Archive 1

Article created
Created this article as a split from Star Trek, other storylines as a copy and paste of the existing material on my second go. Added the opening paragraph - pretty lame, eh? - just in case that was why it didn't 'take' last time. proposed development of article ... Sections that I can forsee need elaboration that I could use help with are fan fiction (the episodic series would be a subset of this I believe), RPGs, 3D Chess, card or board games (if there are any) or anything I've missed.
 * 1) Add all known fan films and audio dramas within the categories shown
 * 2) Add sections for
 * 3) VR (Virtual Reality) animations with subcategories for ...
 * 4) Stop motion
 * 5) Sim movies
 * 6) Flash
 * 7) Machinima
 * 8) CGI Animation
 * 9) Web Comics
 * 10) Computer Games with subcategories for ...
 * 11) Half-Life
 * 12) Star Trek: Elite Force
 * 13) Unreal Tournament 2004
 * 14) Freeware (ie others)
 * 15) Skills and crafts with subcategories for ...
 * 16) Card modelling

Basically my purpose here is to show the breadth and and creativity of fans; how it has become a subculture, with its own works of art and literature by the common man.--Kirok 05:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Too wide a scope
Kirok, I appreciate your efforts here, especially your attempt at being comprehensive. However, I think trying to mash video productions with fan fiction widens the scope of this article beyond what is reasonable. There are forty years of Trek fan fiction in existence, and trying to cover all of that territory in the same article dealing with fan film productions seems like overreaching to me.

Additionally, I wonder about what criteria you used to list the fan films that you did in the order that you chose. Leading off with a high school production when more substantial productions exist doesn't seem like the best way to present the information. Your thoughts? --Carlos 05:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right as regards to the scope of fan fiction - there are thousands of individual works from drablets to trilogies and larger! I was thinking in terms of limiting the listing to archives (eg. FanFiction.net), series (eg. ST: Liberty) and virtual seasons (eg. Virtual Voyager) ... perhaps competitions such as "Strange New Worlds". However even that will be big - IMHO it is a candidate for an article of its own but I have only dabbled in FanFic (who hasn't?). I'm open to debate on this.

The criteria for listing works is alphabetical - that "A" puts it in front of everybody! Since this is meant to be "encyclopedic" I am thinking of pruning the "New Beginning" article a little. I was thinking of listing the individual episodes in this article but I tried it and in the preview it was just too unwieldy! To show all 6 seasons you have about three screensfull to scroll through! What is needed is a seperate article on Hidden Frontier therefore the blurb in this article needs expanding.


 * Personally, I don't think the A New Beginning should even be listed - it's hardly notable, the ONLY references to it are here on Wikipedia, they've already lied about a supposed article about it in Wired last year, and for all the claims they make about it, the only place even HOSTING their film that I can find is the Wikimedia servers... these kids are using the Wikipedia as their own website, something clearly against the rules... they're gaming the system, IMHO... Also, alphbetical may be fine for small lists, but with as many as you've listed, it's unweildy, especially when so many of them are non-notable... heck, some of them are listed by title only, with no additional notation! There needs to be a section at the beginning for actual notable films, such as the Fourth Season New Voyages crew, Hidden Frontier, and the Star Wreck films, especially the latest one... I've been taking a long look at this article, because there's a LOT in there that should be weeded out. TheRealFennShysa 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively we could have the productions in reverse chronological order which would put HF first, TOTSF fleet, NV etc (unless you take the different acts of Exeter as individual releases?) or they could be listed number of eps which would list the same way I think? The single notations are my fault - i have a lot of material to put in here: I'm distilling it from this months review of the field in "The LIEF Erikson" i have 55 pages to whittle down so bear with me!--Kirok 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people are being far too harsh on Star Trek: A New Beginning. Afterall, this section is slated for fan productions, and it is undeniable that their movie qualifies. If you watch their film, it does exhibit pretty good SFX (especially considering the stated $5.00 budget), especially considering they are, as you say, just kids. Though their movie doesn't debut on a google search, it has made the rounds on Kazaa and I think its jumping the gun to delete it. Also, they did not lie (I've been reading the article) about their movie featuring in Wired, someone else made that claim and it was subsequently debunked.--216.47.172.198 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry sport, the sole arbiter of style has deemed that even if "New Beginnings" were to be proven a viable fan film, it is not "Notable" in that it does not have IMDB ratings or Google hits to prove its worthiness to be listed here. Joking aside, what is needed is more information and for the producers to market themselves better. Even the 15 year olds who floated the concept Group "ST: Mystery Area" were able to get a buzz going by contacting Trek United, Slice of Scifi, etc ... Biggest problem is that there is no way of contacting them to find out more.--Kirok 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "sole arbiter of style" nickname is going to get old fast - I'm just trying to look at this article objectively, on the basis that some things should be listed, and some things shouldn't. Some things simply are more notable than others. The A New Beginning article is a perfect example of someone violating Wikipedia's own guidelines - plain and simple, as the only citation of any note when you search on them is the Wikipedia. Searches of Kazaa and Bittorrent do not turn up their film, either - it's apparently also being hosted only on Wikipedia, which is again against Wikipedia policy. I've got nothing against them trying to promote their film - if they really think it's worthy, they should set up a real website for it, or submit it to FanFilms.com or iFilm for hosting - but Wikipedia is not the place to be doing that. Now, about the Wired reference, it looks like I made a mistake, and on second look it doesn't appear to be the ANB kids that brought up the article - I'll admit that... however, they certainly tried to game the system on the first AfD, tho, with multiple apparent sockpuppets, including Klingonpixie, Worthawholebean, Qilai8888, Kimsungli, Drno007, Noah211 and let's not forget all the IP-only editors, 216.47.173.63, 216.47.174.68, 216.47.174.155, and our poster above, 216.47.172.198 - almost all of whom only edit articles relating to A New Beginning and come from around Wallington or Milford, Connecticut - now what are the odds of that? How's life at the Choate Rosemary Hall, guys? TheRealFennShysa 00:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I’m Nicholas Kent, the guy who directed Star Trek: A New Beginning. I only found out about the controversy surrounding my film’s website when a classmate told me about it.  I had no idea that there was a wikipedia page about my movie (I certainly did not make it), and, frankly I am flattered that somebody would bother to write an article about my film, but I more than understand that it isn’t wikipedia material.  I hope nobody attributes the sockpuppets (my classmates no doubt) or website to me.  I’m a fervent user of wikipedia myself and am disappointed that my own work could be used to stagnate it.  Who knows, perhaps one day Star Trek: A New Beginning will be legitimate wikipedia material, but until then, do what you have to do!

Some sections need to go
We need to think about seriously losing the "Films no longer available" section, and combining it with the regular filsm section... some films may not be available on the internet, but are still available, like Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation... you've also got some films listed as available that apparently *aren't*, like the Redshirt "filmette" thing, which I've never heard of, and doesn't appear to be online... The concept group has GOT to go - those films do not exist in any form yet, other than as ideas - considering *how many* fan films get announced and never made, I highly doubt these will as well, especially considering whoever added them couldn't be bothered to even add a description... The thing to remember here is notable - which should also exclude the pre-production films as well, seeing as that's only one step away from announced... something that barely exists can hardly be considered notable, unless there's some serious celebrity behind it somehow... I haven't had a chance to take a hard look at this article yet, but there's a LOT in here that needs to be pruned away. TheRealFennShysa 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "losing the "Films no longer available" section, and combining it with the regular filsm section"
 * I made it a subsection of produced fan films, to integrate it even more will, I think, dilute the impact of what is currently available. I'd like to keep some visible way of distinguishing between what is currently available and what is not. Perhaps we need to talk about a template?

Found this Infobox which looks looks useful ...

... but is a standard movie infobox with fields that do not suit a Star Trek fan film, for example Distributor and Budget. I would suggest changing this to location and availability which would be more useful in that it would accentuate the international nature of Trek fan films and those which are no longer available as discussed and formats (free download, DVD, VHS ...) Unfortunately it looks like the criteria for creating or changing these InfoBoxes is a long term project and they might take up too much space here. A smaller version might be appropriate for the "major projects" though --Kirok 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "The concept group has GOT to go ...especially considering whoever added them couldn't be bothered to even add a description..."That was me again: I reduced them to just a list in response to your earlier comments - you want me to expand on them again? I think not. I vote for dropping this section - its more trouble than its worth.


 * "The thing to remember here is notable - which should also exclude the pre-production films as well, seeing as that's only one step away from announced..."


 * Its also one step away from production, depends on your viewpoint. The "Bring Back Kirk" trailer was never even considered for production and yet it drew massive attention at the time - more than produced fan films! How about I reduce the Pre-production groups to a list of links headed "Fan groups in pre-production ...". Perhaps as Carlos has said i'm trying to be too exhaustive here - making the article too unwieldy will make it unreadable.--Kirok 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fan Film section revisions
Okay, first off, I've started some MAJOR revisions to this section - I've gone through and started pruning out things with very few citations in Google searches... so things like  A New Beginning, the Redshirt filmette, Yesterday's Essex, Tomorrow's Command, and Yorktown 2 are gone, as the only major citiatons on the web I can find for them or mainly right here on this list - that means to me someone stuck them in here as vanity projects, or in the case of the A New Beginning kids, trying to use Wkipedia as their website. I've also moved the legal section to the beginning of the aricle, as it feels better there to have some of this stuff stated right upfront... I haven't looked at the pre-production stuff yet, but we need to seriously look at how far along some of those are before their fate can be determined... TheRealFennShysa 01:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude! You put "Stone Trek" in and left "Starship Exeter" out? Much as I like and respect Matt's work, not only is Exeter the oldest fan film it has an IMDB entry. Their latest ep, TTI, is written by a multiple TNG scriptwriter! What's your criteria for notable anyway? --Kirok 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, Starship Exeter is still on the page... however, it's hardly the oldest fanfilm - Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation has that beat by years... and if you're referring to Dennis Bailey, he needs to get his IMDB credits corrected, as they're not listing his TNG credits - which IIRC, he only received story credit on, as the actual teleplay credits went to the TNG writing staff. As for my criteria, there's several things. Notoriety, coverage in the media, Google hits, you name it - I've put some thought into this, plus I've been involved with fan films and fan productions for 20 years now, so I've heard and seen a lot, plus I also help run the fanfilm section of TheForce.net, so I hear and see a lot about this genre from there as well... since you brought up the IMDB, the two Exeter films have MovieMeter ranks of 61,120 and 97,855. New Voyages is at 6,081. Star Wreck is at 3,379. Hidden Frontier is at 3,379. While there's no Stone Trek page on IMDB (since no one has submitted it yet), a Google search on "Stone Trek" brings up 23,100 results, compared to 18,500 for "Starship Exeter." So... enough justification? :) TheRealFennShysa 05:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why I wanted to order the fan films by alphasort or chronologically, some objectively noncompetative way. Rating films leads to winners and loosers - elitism. To me, that is not what fandom is about.


 * For me to argue about your placement of "Stone Trek" amongst the major projects whilst leaving "Exeter" out, requires me to imply that there is something lacking in "Stone Trek". I refuse to say that one is better than another. I shall leave that to older and wiser heads than mine: any system that says that Exeter is NOT a major project is obviously way to esoteric for me to understand. I'll just keep on providing the information and you tell us all if it is notable enough for you. I have no qualifications, I'm just a fan. --Kirok 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there seems to have been a similar discussion about what is "notable" enough to warrant inclusion on the Movie project, with the concensus being that ... "If someone cares enough about a movie to put it in (excluding self-promotion and other stuff like that which clearly should not be on WP), maybe someone else will care enough to search for it. So, if the article is any good, my vote is to keep it, notable or not. AdamSmithee 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"--Kirok 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the producer of the Redshirt Filmette Series I put back Redshirt Filmette Series  info that was deleted. I feel it should be listed here for it's accomplishments. I also was connected with the crew that made "Yesterday's Essex", Stella Nova as Science Fiction Modellers' Club of New Zealand. It put back its information that was deleted. And I thought that entry should remain here for many reasons. It was a substantial video of it's time ('80s), and that fan video crew built a complete TOS bridge set for the show. (That LARGE accomplishment is something that other TOS fan videos today (Exeter and NV) get a lot of Internet respect for doing nowadays.) Also I was Voyages of the USS Angeles production crew in several 'Voyages of USS Angeles' episodes and even guest starred in one. I put back that episode information that was deleted. '''***IMHO: With the ever changing 'partiality' of the many and numerous self-appointed Wiki editors of this ST fan video section, it is difficult to keep up with the wholesale deletion of information done by some Wiki editors/fan video makers here at the expense of other fan video makers that have contributed here in the recent past. This is a great shame and does a disservice to the Wiki readers who are looking for a comprehensive ST fan video entries to be presented here. Also Wiki's reputation on the Internet itself is being hurt by the biased unwitting censureship, i.e. it's ST fan video entries deleted by editors here. I know this because of two things; I have seen my own fan video entries and my first hand knowledge about other fan video series entries deleted by same editors, editors who could have learned more info about my entries by contacting me through my Wiki account or through this Talk Page. I was NOT contacted. Why not? Second point; I am begining to share the same negative view as my old ST fan video friend, Ryan k Johnson (and many others I know) about trying to list any of their fan video info here at all. Ryan recently expressed to me that bothering to list his fan video information here is a waste of time and effort purely because of the way that large ego minded over-competative unfriendly, unfair Wiki editors/video producers are breaking the Wiki rules in monopolizing this ST fan video listing section. This area was supposed to be unbiased, list only the facts, and not use this Wiki listing as a promotional device. How come entries are quickly deleted connected with certain fan video producers or websites, while others remain? Especially when one carefully compares those fan video entries that are left unedited and reading the Talk Page for the motivations of those 'competative' editors/fan video makers to leave those special fan video entries untouched? With the way this section is being currently managed by those listed Wiki editors/fan video makers 'handles' over and over on it's history page, anyone can readily see that this section is greatly censured, flawed and this section of knowledge should be more actively overseen by Wiki Moderators to at least present a fair and balanced listing. Currently this section lists only the editors 'favs' or mutualy agreed to 'favs'. How is that sharing all fan video listings? I once read this review of this Wiki experiment: Wikipedia is just like a real encyclopedia, except without the intelligence, research, or credibility. It's free, and worth every penny. Wikipedia is like one giant argument that no one ever wins! That review is pretty damning and it seems this ST fan video section supports some of this sad review.'''Netwriter 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems AGAIN, my RedShirt Filmette Series entry (after being put up) and is under deletion threat again by Wiki member 'MikeWazowski' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski and Wikipedia rules. It would be great and a wonderfull demonstration of solidarity & friendliness for Wiki members here to help in keeping this entry here. Calling'Kirok' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirok TheRealFennShysa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRealFennShysa thanks
 * Netwriter 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than repeating my negative but still true observations of how this Wiki Star Trek fan films entry and this corresponding Talk Page is blantantly biased towards a fan film Clique but are excluding other established fan films projects (including pre-Internet ones) from being listed here, I will just point out that this personal animousity here continues to this date despite my attempts at be factual and also based on sharing my knowledge & my knowlegde of producing many fan films in several genres/formats and personally being involved in the fan film fandom since the 1981 with all the while personally exibiting and promoting 50+ hours of many donated fan films whenever possible. The Clique members here have activly increased their unhelpful hostility and have continually displayed their negative, rude, and hostile personal comments here. Any prudent reader here will recognise that their flawed entries merely reflect their random unfounded personal conclusions on the vague outcome of some fan film rumor issues and are also based on rumor and inuendo mentioned elsewhere. While I have had little personal contact or Internet dealings with them, mostly in Wikipedia; the Clique's constantly deletes, attacks, and personally impunes most non-Clique fan film entries attempted to be listed here but then hypocriticly on other hand only allows 'their' or their pal's fan video very questionable & hyberbole driven fan film entries/statements be posted in here with less or even no scrutiny on the so-called Wiki demanded verifiable facts. This effectively makes this fan film entry a small flawed ineffective, unuseful and grossly gossipy entry of no worthiness to Wikipedia's stated mission statement, or their Wiki readers, or people dropping by here trying to get valid information. Maybe this Clique thinks they are doing something of merit while it clearly looks like simple ego bumping/supporting. This complete entry is a sham of 'the maybe slightly informed Wiki fan film editors self-editing a flawed fan film entry for the unknowledgeable's misinformation'. To be really informed, you might go ESLEWHERE for your fan film information . The Wiki STAFF should interceed and I have asked them too. It seems that they are too busy presently. No doubt the Clique members will post about this matter very soon.Netwriter 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You complain about animosity directed at you, but never seem to consider that you might have generated that animosity yourself. You have set yourself up as a purveyor of facts, and yet you never substantiate them. (Claiming "huge numbers of people opposed to Hidden Frontier", but no links, claiming the details of a gun incident are true when you were never there and in fact were quoting hearsay as fact, making numerous libelous claims with no substantiation beyond your own conviction, and so forth) Frequently, you'll make posts in various places that say "For the true facts, PM me separately", as if you felt your facts could never withstand scrutiny.  You become hostile the moment someone disagrees with you, interpreting ANY disagreement as a personal attack, whereupon you immediately start making personal attacks of your own.  You make 'poisoning the well' comments like "any prudent person can see" that strongly imply that if someone doesn't see things as you state them, they cannot be a prudent person, and then wonder why you get hostile responses.  You claim that the only people who could possibly say positive things about your opponents are liars and syncophants, and then wonder why you get hostile responses.  You make ad hominem attacks on others, and wonder why you receive hostile responses.  You claim professional journalists have been influenced by your opponents or else performing "poor journalistic practices" when they have good things to say about your opponents, and wonder why you receive hostile responses.  You ruin your own reputation for credibility, then get angry when no one believes you.  When you get angry at someone, you accuse them of everything from poor hygiene to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, knowing that most of the accusations are untrue, but hoping that at least some of them will be coincidentally be true and might stick.  Like a bad fortune teller, you then point to the few times you were right and utterly ignore all the other times when you were wrong, and then try to build on those few as "proof" that you've been right all along.  And then you wonder why you receive hostile responses from the people you've wronged, maligned, and libelled, as well as their friends, and neutral third parties.  Neutral third parties that cease to be neutral as they watch you make clearly biased statements, distortions of the facts, hypocritical commentary, and outright lies, and then demand that they believe you or be labeled unintelligent or biased themselves.  And then you wonder why you receive hostile commentary.  You demand that moderators intervene, and then get upset when they intervene in favor of the people you've been attacking, at which point you start questioning their integrity and impartiality, as you did on the IMDB.  You take outrageous liberties with the right to free speech, then complain when others exercise their free speech rights.  And still you wonder why you receive hostile responses.  You actively accuse every negative response to you as being the result of an exclusionary clique or a conspiracy against you without ever considering that your own obnoxiousness has caused those responses.


 * I'm reminded of a rather dim co-worked who decided to euthanize his own dog. After making certain it was comfortably wrapped in a scrap of blanket and lying down in a cardboard box, he got out a hammer and hit the dog in the head. But he didn't kill it, so he reached in to comfort the dog, and to his intense surprise, the dog actually bit him!  You come into TrekBBS, IMDB, IntrepidBBS, HFBBS, you create websites and blogs of malice, hitting all of us with the hammer of your hatred, and then rail against us for having bit you.  Maybe you should reconsider your strategy.  Instead of constantly trying to find a bigger hammer, maybe, just maybe, you should stop hitting us. JohnWhiting 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this becoming a personal matter, instead of about the fan video production Wiki entry facts? Instead this matter is TOO personal with several folks speaking back here. And now...Oh, Gawd. We now hear this is a unsupported stack of attacking inuendo and false conclusions based on his blind personal biased agenda. His comments are just another list of silly personal attacks on me from a member of the Hidden Frontier production crew and 'performer' that has been making this personal attack on me for years...LOL hardly a neutral POV. Why is this a personal attack again? And he is not staying on the topic? I should have a defensive right to speak up. In Wiki, another way for his attack group to personally strike back at me is by keeping any entry or mentioning of my video productions from being listed here. Their strange adverse competitive nature against me is flattering. The litany of rumors listed above is petty at best. However, contray to the previous poster, I offer the supporting facts privately, so as to not turn this page into just some more mindless bickering. He and others here ('the clique') have been trying to stop/muzzle my voicing of the questionable actions of some Star Trek fan video makers in other sites on the Internet. Those are important matters of copyright piracy and other important fan video makers errors of ethical judgement.Netwriter 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does it state that Wikipedia should be all-inclusive. As even Kirok notes, the Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion. While his film may be very important to him, Netwriter's "filmette" series is a perfect example of a non-notable film. Googling the terms "The Redshirt Series" or "Redshirt Filmette Series" bring up NO results. Taking away the quotes brings up the filmmaker's own webpages. Broadening the serach terms shows that any other citations (and there are very few) are by the film's creator - I couldn't find a single citation out there on this film that wasn't connected to the filmmaker bringing it up himself. Netwriter's admitted to being Anthony Genovese - odd how in one of his previous edit summaries he said that an image was "added by the producer's permission" - turns out he uploaded that picture himself, and the picture's notation states "I made this myself and I own all it's elements". Were you trying to pretend to be someone else? Now, I also removed the New Zealand film by applying the same objective standards to it - and a Google search on that title brings up only four citations - and all brought up by only one person. Also, the KiwiHouse link has no information as claimed, there's no citation on the LOTR info, and the photos are again on Genovese's website. The "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand" brings up no results, "Medalstone Pictures" brings up only the same ones above for the film title, and Essex Productions is going to be hard to trace, as that's the name of Frank Sinatra's production company - I doubt he had a hand in this one. Now, let me be clear - this is in no way against the filmmakers of these films - filmmaking is a lot of hard work, and I commend anyone for completing a film. But in an encyclopedic article, there needs to be some standard to hew to. These two entries do not meet that standard, IMHO. If you want a separate all-inclusive list of fanfilms, go head and make one. Here - follow that link and make one. Heck, I may even start it for you later - and I promise that I won't delete a thing from it, except for blantant vandalism, of course. But for an overview article, which is what this one should be, we simply cannot list everything. TheRealFennShysa 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about your thoughts for the Voyages of the Angeles revisions/deletions the second time? Netwriter 17:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I am still waiting for a simple answer to my previously asked question listed before this comment on the Voyages of the Angeles deletion for a second time, I wish to comment and discuss some points. I am sorry for the tardiness of posting here. I did NOT wish the wrong impression to be left here by not defending my entries mentioned by 'Therealfennshysa'. First 'Therealfennshysa' said: 'Nowhere does it state that Wikipedia should be all-inclusive'+++ Nowhere does it say that Wikipedia should NOT be all inclusive. Common sense would say that pertinent entries should be archived here. I'll go with common sense. 'Therealfennshysa' said: 'Netwriter's "filmette" series is a perfect example of a non-notable film. Googling the terms "The Redshirt Series&quot; or "Redshirt Filmette Series" bring up NO results. Taking away the quotes brings up the filmmaker's own webpages. Broadening the serach terms shows that any other citations (and there are very few) are by the film's creator - I couldn't find a single citation out there on this film that wasn't connected to the filmmaker bringing it up himself.'+++ Please realize that there is a steep learning curve in knowledge and free time in getting my filmette series information onto the net. In this task, I am a busy & maybe a poor webmaster. Do not attach any dark conclusions or complicated assumptions on this simple fact. Things on the Internet take time, and people accomplish what they can, when they can. If your are voluteering to spread the news or promote my RedShirt Filmette Series onto Google, Yahoo or Internet Movie Database, I would like to talk to you. My sites have only been on the Internet for a few weeks and Google and others haven't had much time to find them, as yet. I know that will help in time. My previous time was getting my videos shown live to fans and clubs in different venues over the USA and Europe. 'Therealfennshysa' said: 'Netwriter's admitted to being Anthony Genovese - odd how in one of his previous edit summaries he said that an image was "added by the producer's permission" - turns out he uploaded that picture himself, and the picture's notation states "I made this myself and I own all it's elements". Were you trying to pretend to be someone else?'+++ I did do all that. Maybe it was a simple unfortunate choice of words, but hardly a basis for someone to start a rumor or start some conspiracy theory about this simple matter. No bigee!'Therealfennshysa' said,also removed the New Zealand film by applying the same objective standards to it - and a Google search on that title brings up only four citations - and all brought up by only one person. Also, the KiwiHouse link has no information as claimed'.+++ Maybe a youthful mistake on my part. But the Thomas Family(KiwiHouse wesbite) worked on the fan video and are friends of mine. Mr. D. Thomas gave me a copy of the video when we worked together 'Phil and Ed's Excellant Convention' many years ago. They have a standing request of me that I share this video and it's information with anyone who might be interested. So I did that here. 'Therealfennshysa' said: 'The "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand" brings up no results, "Medalstone Pictures" brings up only the same ones above for the film title, and Essex Productions is going to be hard to trace...'+++ After reading this comment, my response is that 'Therealfennshysa' has given us a several very good reasons for this important missing entry information to be included & kept here. He clearly makes my point why these entries are needed and should not be censured/deleted. Websites go up and down during the coarse of a websites life. The facts are available and aren't. I feel it's better that they are here. 'Therealfennshysa' comments make a good case for Wiki to allow anyone to include true facts like Yorktown 2 or other pertinent entries of this subject matter. Otherwise Wiki is missing real facts and there is no staring place for research. Wiki should be inclusionary, NOT exclusionary as the current unfortunate actions of Wiki members here. 06:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Netwriter 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem that Netwriter has (by the way, good onya for registering) is the same as any fanchise producer - noone wants to see their work cut. Just about anyone with an interest in Trek fan films knows that the reason you will never see Tony's film in wide release is because of his (to put it mildly) outspoken opposition to what he believes is the fan film community's missuse of copyrights. Personally I believe his film exists however it will never be "notable" by your criteria of google hits because it is not available to the public. However it certainly is notable in regards to the fact that it belongs to a group of fan films that have been made but never publicly distributed ... plus the notoriety of its director >(-.^)--Kirok 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I never said his film didn't exist. [nor did I say you did--Kirok 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)] I'm basing my edits on Wikipedia guidelines of what should be included, such as those listed here or here. There are literally no mentions of this film anywhere outside of the filmmaker promoting it himself. [My point exactly--Kirok 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)] As to the notoriety of the director, I'd never heard of the guy until this all came up, but after doing a little research, notoriety is one word I'd use, but not in a positive way. TheRealFennShysa 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When you sift through the vitriole and hyperbole, Tony does have some valid points and can serve as the sand in the oyster to bring out some equally valid responses - the whole valuable discussion on copyright on the Other Storylines Talk page and the subsection on "Legal Aspects" can be directly attributed to his agitation. Whilst I do not advocate publicising his questionable epistles, I think ignoring his point of view is a mistake. This however is a side issue from the inclusion of his fan film in this article. If you concede that it exists then the only question of why it should not be included here is whether this article should be a summary or comprehensive - on which see below.--Kirok 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For this article, there's nothing notable about his film. It's not referenced anywhere else, no one else mentions it anywhere - it essentially exists in a vacuum, as far as notability is concerned. So for this article, I say "no way." Now, if you want to set up another article (like the List of Star Trek fan films I proposed earlier, go for it - more power to him, and anyone else you want to add. We can include a link to the larger list on the main page, after the film sections. TheRealFennShysa 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "For this article, there's nothing notable about his film." So you insist that notability is paramount in this article. Why? Because it is a summary article. Why? You are avoiding my direct questions - by what authority do you insist that this must be a summary article? The field is not so big that it needs a list article as with Star Trek Novels as you suggest - you would be adding an unnecessary level between the top mention of fan films and articles on the individual films or groups. For what? An extra ten groups? Totally unnecessary. Your worry seems to be that the less notable groups will drag down the major projects by being on the same page - that sir is elitism. There are ways of formatting the page and setting guidelines that will ensure that excellence in a production is self-evident. Emphasis can be applied by length of entry or by only allowing graphics for milestone fanchises. Shunting less well known or groups which are now only of historical curiosity (and I would maintain that "The Pepsi Generation" fits that criteria)into obscurity without clear reasons is editorial bias. You have only given us IMDB & Google ratings as criteria. For heavens sake man, we've just lost ST: Enterprise and all professional Trek production has been put on hold because of ratings  and now you want to apply the same idea to fan films? I couldn't give a dead dingoes donger about ratings!
 * I can't speak for Star Wars fan films, but Trek fan films are NOT written to win popularity competitions, nor to take the place of professional productions. The top three Trek fan films are on the cusp of becoming Indies, but the rest are BY DEFINITION made by and for fans
 * Trek fan films are a free expression of our fandom. You like The Original Series, you want to see more and you have a group of like-minded friends? Go for it! Do it! You will have to search for the talents and develop the skills needed to make a film production - if you believe in your production enough to put your hard-earned cash on the line, I'm assuming you will want to make the effort to make it the best film you can. Beyond that, its nice to get accolades, perhaps you might want to show it at cons or in film festivals, perhaps you might do it again, but are you really worried if it isn't popular? You're doing it for yourself and those who enjoy TOS, if it doesn't come up to scratch on some ratings board outside TOS fans - Google, IMDB or Neillson - should you be bothered? Show of hands from those who care, please? No, I thought not.
 * We're not talking about constructive criticism which is offered to improve your work here, we are talking about a ratings system that is trying to deny your work's existence as a Trek fan film!
 * [Edit] In all fairness I noticed in passing that my posted questions have only been up for a day, so I must apologise for my impatience. Everything else stands: I think we deserve these answers. This is after all WIKI (What I Know Is] and not JTMWFI (Just Take My word For It)Kirok 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A Summary or Comprehensive Article
"... for an overview article, which is what this one should be, we simply cannot list everything." TheRealFennShysa has stated several times that this article cannot be comprehensive and from a writer's viewpoint I must ask why? Because the subject is too large and would make the article too long? What constitutes too long? I can't find any guidelines for this so we'll do a bit of comparison. The "List of Star Trek novels" is just over 900 lines and 5000 words although admittedly this is a "list" article. "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" is a mixture of text and tables and weighs in at 567 lines and 6499 words. By comparison at the moment we have 326 lines and 3723 words. Using this as a criteria we could nearly double it in scroll length and word count so article size is not an issue. I believe we could quite even cover most of the contested fan films as well. What are our options? I think separating the articles will be the best compromise by making space available to do a comprehensive survey of fanfilms with enough info so that the reader can draw general conclusions about the genre. A view, I might point out that is suggested by Wikipedia for Long article layout. The RFS, can you give us any specific reasons why this article cannot be comprehensive?--Kirok 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The RFS has suggested that we make a seperate article that is a comprehensive list - like The "List of Star Trek novels" - and this has its merits. It might not be particularly stylish or atractive but it is comprehensive and useful, especially for the fan who wants to follow up on a fanchise by seeing every one of their episodes. One would assume that this is in addition to this article which will be an overview article.
 * Take Carlos' advice and make separate articles for fan fiction and fan films. Fan films alone is so far 233 lines & 2619 words, 40% of the size of the "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" article, so that article size is even less of an issue for saying that it can't be comprrehensive. I would suggest making fan films, fan audio dramas & fan fiction separate articles and link them from the original "Star Trek, other storylines" article.
 * Taking things to the next level would mean making individual articles for each of the fanchises - this has been done already with Star Trek: New Voyages, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier etc. In fact if you were to follow the format used in the Movie project you would have articles for individual films! If Netwriter wanted to create an article on the Redshirt Filmette Series, that would be up to him.
 * Having individual articles for each fanchise would mean that there would be no need to be too exhaustive about the summary information given in the Trek fan film article, so that entries in this article could be proportional to their significance or if you will, notability. This would mean that for example a "major project" such as Stone Trek could have a much larger entry than the merely "notable" Starship Exeter - I still can't believe you did that! Perhaps its because they haven't done a Star Wars crossover?

A comprehensive article
I said right at the start of this article ..."Basically my purpose here is to show the breadth and and creativity of fans; how it has become a subculture, with its own works of art and literature by the common man." being selective about what material is listed does not show "the breadth" of material available, nor does it focus on the fans or the work of the "common man".

After saying that I have taken on board the comments about notability and scope. On the one hand, yes, there are some productions that are more notable than others and I have kept the notable film group although I have changed the names of the sections from "major projects" and "Notable films", to "Notable films" and "produced films" respectively, since the second section will include as complete a listing of fan films produced as possible.

Notability will also be emphasised by the size of the article: Notable fan films will be about a screenful, ~250 words, (perhaps with a thumbnail graphic each?) whereas other produced fan films will be no more than half that size, 125 words. I would suggest that all produced fan films should have their own entry in Wikipedia, there is a precedent in other areas.

This will help also with the scope - the size of pre-production fan films will be reduced to a paragraph, 75-100 words. IF the article get too unwieldy, the fan films section might need to be split off. Gotta blaze!--Kirok 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote the New Voyages entry to 250 words as an example of what I am thinking of, I've only taken out old info and added more information basing it on the old 5WH principle... Especially with a thumbnail each this should make all the notable productions really shine! I'll have a crack at doing a 125 word standard production entry tomorrow, then a 2-3 line pre-production entry so that we can see what I'm proposing.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Who was involved? - Producer, Director, scriptwriter, actors
 * 2) What is it? - Type (parody/action), Trek era, plot summary, No. & length of episodes
 * 3) Why is it notable, unique? - Impact on popular culture, critical/media acclaim, use of new media
 * 4) Where...? - was it made, language
 * 5) When...? - was the concept genesis, first release
 * 6) How...? - was it produced, distributed, details

+NEW+ Dear 'Kirok'- I want to share with you some thoughts about this whole Wiki fan films listing matter. 1. I am having a problem with your structuring of this entry. I specifically do not understand how uncompleted fan films like Uss Intrepid's fan film gets a solid listing here BUT the Redshirt Filmette episode is not listed. How can a unreleased and uncompleted video take precident over a completed video that has been around for 3 years? Just using Google and other search engine requirements are inequitable. 2. I am having problems with Wiki's easy ability for people to delete articles and when you try to talk to them on their actions you never hear from them again after the deletion. Doesn't seem equitable. 3. I am having problems with getting any responses from adamant Wiki editors here like 'TheRealFennShysa', 'MikeWazowski'? I have taken the extra energy to post questions here and on their individual TALK pages with NO response from them. Strange and maybe unfair? 4. I am having problems with conflicting instructions that Wiki entries need to be non-vanity and yet verifiable. So when you are part of the entries listing and thus can really verify the facts, you are accused of writting an 'self-promotion and vane' entry. A No No, immediate deletion comes! AND when unbiased author's put up an Wiki entry, that entry is put through a barrage of unrealistic 'hoops' of trying to provability that noone else's entry needs to attain. A No No, immediate deletion comes! This doesn't seem fair or equitable to people knowing the facts. I am still finding this Wiki listing matter to be wholly capricious, arguementative, haphazard and completely arbitrary. I can see why people say Wiki is just a waste of time to list at or contribute to. I am still waiting to hear from those opinionated dealers of deletion here. It seems to be a circus. Netwriter 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently are forgetting that I have replied to you, on the subject of the deletion of your Redshirt Filmette page, although that discussion has been deleted along with the article. You also tried to insinuate there that I was a brand new editor with an immediate agenda to target you, which was not, and is not the case. In regards to your continued attempts to force your Redshirt film into Wikipedia, you can hardly be considered an "unbiased author."
 * That being said, I also think the films listed as being in pre-production should go. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as outlined here. Unless these guys have gotten some serious press, they shouldn't be listed, per the crystal ball guidelines, as well as guidelines on notability. MikeWazowski 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. 'mikewazowski' thanks for posting here. It is taking too much trouble to posting my comments two or three times on the same number of different topic and account TALK pages. It gets troubling and confusing keeping track. Percieved slow responses and responses spread around is troublesome for me. I asked you some additional questions, did you answer those? Also please do not use any patented 'Wiki only' terms without giving me a definition. I like to learn the Wiki terms when I don't know the lingo. Please, I am not meaning any insult here to you or any others. I want to work this out. Netwriter 21:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mike, putting aside the problems with The Redshirt Filmette series (which if you'll check your Talk page Netwriter you'll see that you have options still open to you) Could you be a little more specific about which pre-production groups you have an issue with? ALL of them have strong ties on the forums of the Trek fan film community, some have been referenced in Trek and wider SciFi media and a few in mainstream reporting. Pre-production can cover a wide range in the definition I have given it. For example I do not include a trailer as a production element yet two groups have released trailers this month which show a major investment in time, skill, infrastructure and MONEY - "USS Hathaway" and "Starship Farragut". Don't be swayed by the PRE in pre-production: the material coming from these groups is substantial AND critically notable.
 * I'm getting fed up with having to defend Trek fan films. This article is meant to be about fan films of the trek genre. Do they spring fully formed into the world like Venus on the half-shell? NO! They are progressively built works that demand a massive investment of time - anything from months to 6 years - and infrastructure. The fanchises that they build up along the way are a work in themselves which can include podcasts, trailers, webcomics, convention appearances and a massive web of inter-relationships, sharing personel and gear.
 * Fan films are not a commodity like a loaf of bread that you pick up at the shops. They are a major investment of the lifeforces of the hundreds of people involved and to say that they have no place in Wikipedia is to say that Wikipedia is focussed only on commodities and not the social and cultural forces that have created them. Cut out the pre-production groups and you ignore a field of endeavour that is becoming a potent force in the fan world.--Kirok 03:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

SAG/AFTRA actors on Star Trek: New Voyages
Recently, the New Voyages folks contact union guest stars; Walter Koenig, George Takei, Grace Lee Whitney, and others. The actor's unions have SAG Rule #1and AFTRA Rule one that does not allow union performers to work on non-union projects. (If they do, they can get into trouble by being fined and disciplined by the unions.) Does this mean that New Voyages video becomes a union show to have these union performers? How is this done?Netwriter 08:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The NV production team could easily have become a SAG signatory company, or all the actors could be operating under waivers. It's all pretty simple, and it happens all the time... MikeWazowski 08:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You could be correct and then maybe..? While it maybe true that NV could have become a SAG signatory union show (it's very hard/expensive to do. And if accomplished, I am sure the NV folks would be justifiably ellated and would announce their being a SAG signatory project to all in a press release since that would open the gates for other Star Trek performers to work with them.) 'Waivers', while very very infrequently accomplished, must be reviewed/regulated by the performing unions extensively and are currently very much frowned upon due to the union's stress on enforcing, Global Rule #1. AS much as I would love to see Trek stars in these projects, the chances are very very difficult at best. Netwriter 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are fan groups that are SAG signatories out there, it's just that some people don't feel the need to trumpet that fact from on-high. As for New Voyages, Walter Koenig has already performed in the episode currently in post-production, and George Takei and Grace Lee Whitney have reportedly signed up for future episodes as well. Regardless of what you think the chances are, it's happening... TheRealFennShysa 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this to be a TALK page BUT, I am reading many unsubstantiated comments here WITHOUT proof enclosed here from several Wiki writers. For instance but not solely, 'TheRealFennShysa' has stated, Cow Creek Productions has stopped being the production company of New Voyages....LINK PROOF?


 * It's so obvious I wouldn't have thought it needed pointing out. It's on the bottom of the front page (in fact every page!) of the New Voyages web site - "Presented by Retro Film Studios, Inc. & Cathode Ray Mission" This is sometimes called "Cathode Ray Productions". And before you start i about Jack Marshall being forgotten, Erik Korngold has said that "I've just spoken with Max Rem and he asked me to assure everyone that Jack Marshall has not been "overlooked." As the director of "To Serve All My Days," Jack's credit, and his work, will be on display for all to enjoy."--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kirok. The posting announcing this was posted Fed 28 and I am sure not all here 'live and breath' on the New Voyages forum. I was expecting 'TheRealFennShysa' to supply the footnote since he brought up the issue. I have a hard time footnoting my statements and refuse to supply footnotes for others here. Please realize that while some writting here are strict in their criticism of a fact posting here without supporting proving footnote, the same requirments should be observed for all making comments or entries here. I shouldn'rt have to point out that anything less is elitism and unfair to some here. Let's keep the 'playing field' on the level for all with not an advantage for some special persons who don't support their statements with footnote links. Netwriter 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He also said, 'Fan groups that are SAG signatories out there'...LINK PROOF?In the interest of clarification of these statements, let's be specific with supplying proof to these comments. I would hope the proof standards that Wiki writers use in criticising other person's posting Wiki entries veracity, would also be used in your TALK page comments. I will hold off my judgement on your ideas until proof of these comment appear here. Otherwise it is merely 'hyperbole' from some fan videos makers, who are well known for 'embellishing' on that useless commodity in their Internet communications. thanks Netwriter 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Netwriter, I suspect this is a non-issue since this and every fan film is a non-profit production, in fact i believe that originally they said that if there was any surplus it would be donated to a specific charity. How can they pay anything to the people who contribute? Surely there is provision in the union ruling about working for amateur, charitable and other non-profit organisations? As you well know I am a might busy at the moment and besides I don't see how proving or disproving your theories is our responsibility. Show us how unbiassed you can be and do some original research yourself - post the question on the New Voyages forum or PM James Cawley or Erik Korngold the list admin. I can't make head nor tail of that crack about hyperbole & embellishing.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kirok, This is NOT a non-issue, maybe only to some fan film makers who don't know about pro-actors union, Global Rule #1. If you want pro-actors in your fan films, you better get informed. Is this a case of fan producers behaving in the 'don't ask, don't tell' issue? I have found that there is a lot of happy ignorance on behalf of some video crews out there. Ignorance is no excuse, especially if some fan film makers are now talking like they are the saviors of the Star Trek genre since Enterprise was cancelled for lack of viewers. Sometimes things are true whether you believe it or not. Let's clarify another of your misunderstandings, not EVERY fan film is a non-profit production, I.E. Ryan K Johnson and several other fan film makers I know of. His and other fan films are sold commercially. Let's be specific in speaking here. The performer's unions have special rules for working with some film organizations. For instance, they can work with and allow members to perform in ONLY state & federal officially registered non-profit organizations. That is specific legal term, 'non-profit'. Very much like other terms like 'dervivative works' and 'fair use'. They have special exact meanings. Those 'state & federal officially registered non-profit organizations' are issued a special index number as proof of this govt recognition. All others can just try to misrepresent themselves or their films as something they are not. That is it is crutial why these terms are so important to be understood by all individuals involved in reading these articles. Some fan films self title themselves as non-profit, not because of recieving any govt. licence, but by their own unofficial production standards. I have tried and recieved no information on this Global Rule #1 matter on the Cow Creek BBS after directly asking this of many crew members there. FYI- Been there and done that. This happens all to often from fan film makers when hard ball questions are asked of fan film makers instead of the usual 'softball' ones that come from over-adoring fans. Fan film makers who seem to be oblivious of issues like these and others that I have asked about does not speak well for fan films makers questionable knowledge, credibilty and expertise. Netwriter 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthony, let me be blunt here... why the heck does it matter so much to you whether New Voyages, or any other fanfilm production, is a SAG signatory or not? Does it directly affect you? Are you in some way materially harmed by the fact that NV managed to attract such involvement from recognizable names? I'm sure that people like Koenig and Takei have made sure that whatever needs to be taken care of HAS been taken care of, as it's in their best interests to do so - and besides, that's between them and the NV people - they're under no obligation to explain everything to you, unless you somehow got elected "Grand High Poohbah of All Things Fanfilm Related" while none of us were looking...
 * As for Ryan K. Johnson, none of his stuff is available "commercially", as you put it - that would involve legitimate distribution and license fees to the relevant copyright holders, which is not what Ryan does... he offers to send out copies in exchange for a blank tape and return postage, which is definitely a legal gray area, one which I've advised people to avoid when the subject has come up in the TFN forums... TheRealFennShysa 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that is a, "You don't know for sure' response. Union contracts exist for a very good reason and a benefit for members. Are you anti-union? AND, why all the hostility? I often wonder why fan video makers like yourself are so hostile to persons like me exploring the subject and get publicly snarky about a simple question asked of them. Thou doth protest to much...LOL BTW: I am a union member. Netwriter 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently wrote up the chat that Vaughn Armstrong did on TrekUnited and when asked if he would consider working on a fan film project such as Star Trek: New Voyages, he replied ...

"I don't know if I can legally. The first rule of the Union Code is that you may not agree to work for a producer that is not a signatory the applicable SAG contract. This provision applies world-wide. I would be interested if my Union would allow me too, YES! I've had some producers call me to ask me to do small sci-fi films and I'd love to do them for a number of reasons, but most of them I'm just not allowed to do because of my Union."

This is the first independant evidence that Global Rule One really was an issue, so I contacted the moderator on the New Voyages forum and got permission to raise the issue on their forum. You can read Erik Korngold's response for yourself. Basically it is much as TheRealFennShysa suggested it might be ...

"I'm told that a SAG actor may work for a non-union film if certain criteria are met. Certainly it happens in Hollywood all the time, under such clauses as "experimental" films or student projects. I hear the paperwork is a bit confusing, and has to be filled out for each separate actor for every individual film (or in NV's case, each episode). SAG now has criteria specifically for internet movies. My understanding is that the New Voyages producers make sure everything is done to the letter so as not to cause any of our actors trouble with the union."

Bearing in mind that Erik is a writer and not a producer plus the fact that they cannot be specific about individual contracts because this would be a gross breach of privacy, that is probably the best response you are going to get from New Voyages. It works for me.

I would suggest that if you want to take this further you get new information, otherwise without anything new to work on I think this pretty much settles it.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kirok, Doesn't settle it. Still accepting softball answers to hard questions? This weak third party hear-say and un-official biased information from people who have a vested interest in 'fudging' the truth on this question IMHO is not satisfactory intellectual integrity for a Wiki article writer or Internet Star Trek newsletter author. Your reporter's integrity standards seem to be too forgiving for issues that you have shown a positive biase and weakness for. Where's your reporter's detacted investigation of the true facts instead of accepting a 'softball' answer? Netwriter 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen sunshine, I've gone to the people concerned and got a statement from them. I have no reason to disbelieve them - if you have reason to believe they are "fudging" either put up or shut up! Give us facts instead of sly inuendos and catty remarks about my, albeit amateur, journalism. "biase and weakness"??!! I've done what you couldn't do and had the intestinal fortitude to ask people to their face the questions you have been muttering behind their backs! There is only one person in this room who has proved themselves biassed and weak and it sure ain't me, sport! I'll even do it for you if you want and contact Erik Korngold and tell him that you are calling him a liar and that you insist he tells the truth! I am always willing to help. You've got nothing but hot air behind your case until you come up with facts. Show some backbone man and stop trying to smear people without any discernable reason. Tell us - did you have union standard contracts for all your cast and crew when you made your fan film? This whole distasteful campaign of yours has no place here unless you are going to include it in the article. Show or fold!--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 08:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I guess you can't handle this with civility, huh? Thanks for the confirmation. Like I already said, I and other scifi friends contacted several New Voyages folks and got nowhere. I know Erik is telling the truth as he has been told it by others from personal knowledge. Not pointing out anyone, the 'others' actions and Internet postings don't jive. This makes it confusing and troublesome to get an responsive direct answer, just more vague rationalizations. It seems to be a game to protect themselves in their activities. The problem with people telling misinformation is that they can't keep it straight all the time because it isn't the fact. They say things to best suit the immediate situation. There is alot of that in some fan video camps since they want to over promote their work by using exaggerating hype salesmanship and shown little integrity. They don't want to answer the questions asked directly and offer to you vague 3rd party 'someone told me' conditional comments or go immediately on a pointless 'ad hominen' attack 'smoke screen' on the questioning folks or bring up other secondary issues on other's fan video. IMHO: People who accept that tripe are just ignorant and will stay that way until a personal change occurs. On a more fun note: I have produced several videos and worked on many others. I will cheerfully answer your off topic question about my fan video since your question shows your 'lack of knowledge' on that topic...It was not required of me to offer 'union standard contracts'. If you will just open your mind to my views here, you might learn something about which you have heard only wrong rumors on from others you implictly seem to trust. Ready...My volunteers were not union member stars as with New Voyages or other fan videos. Why not educate yourself by listening and accepting people who know about things, maybe? Revel in your mediocrity, pal. I'm very tired of going around the same tree. Netwriter 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You should know by now that I reserve civility for those who practise it themselves. Yeah, I'm getting fed up with this as well. Given that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your pet campaigns I think it is about time for you to show or fold. You keep on calling this a forum - it is only a forum for discussion of the content of this article and unless you are going to come up with some verifiable facts about SAG actors work contracts in fan films for the article, I suggest we consign this whole dirigible (20% of the wordcount of the talk forum!!) to the archives. Put up or shut up! The requirement for facts and not heresay applies to everyone, including you. I can't see one verifiable fact in your last post. The onus is on YOU to prove that statements are misinformation otherwise these are just baseless attacks.


 * Oh, and by the way, you're a SAG member aren't you? SAG rules are that even though you're the producer you still need to have a signatory contract if you act in your own film. THAT'S why it is on topic. Soooo ... did you break the union rules or not?--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 08:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are taking this way to personal, huh? Remember TheRealFennShysa suggestion to you? Excuse me...where does SAG state that? Supply the link or appologize to me. You are way over your head in this topic here. Is this more rumors from your cronie fan vid friends? This was about the New Voyages crowd not my fan vids, remember? Better do you homework before trying to teach your elders 'how to suck eggs'. But I am touched by your concern. LOL I do not acted in my fan videos while union. I can ask the simple question, you should provide proof here or your are unverifiable by Wiki rules that you love to spout to others here. Hypocrisy? PS..Your ignorance is shown too much here. Enjoy finding another pissing contest opponent! Netwriter 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to impress an Aussie by using simple vulgarities? LMAO! Save it for someone who cares, Buddy! (uh, not that I want to encourage any escalation of personal insults) I think it was a simple enough question - I asked if you were a SAG member, because if you were at the time you made your video you might be interested in the following from the SAGIndie website ...
 * Q.I'm a SAG Member and I want to produce my own film, if I'm the only SAG member out of the cast, do I have to get a signatory contract?
 * A.Yes.
 * Q.I have a related question. Is it true that if I am a producer on the film I can act in it without signing a SAG contract?
 * A.No.


 * You see, unlike you, I really *do* my homework. My point is that it ISN'T just about New Voyages, or Hidden Frontiers - or you - any one group or individuals. There are new groups out there who need to know this type of information and my purpose is to help them. I am trying to get the facts about this NOT to smear people, why the hell should I? I freely admit that you are probably much better than I at sucking eggs, if sucking eggs is what you want to do. I've never really felt the desire myself.


 * ... and elders? I sincerely doubt it, although I'm not going to give anything specifics away here ...just wish me happy birthday.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 08:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS You still have to justify why we should be be having this discussion anyway. Publish or be damned!--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying so hard to change the topic from the original simple question to me personally. Do you want to be serious, or not? Your information maybe correct, why didn't you quote it in the first place and save us your public tantrum? You didn't know about Rule #1 till I told you. You didn't know many other fan video issues here like and was shown that by others here; New Voyages special verbal arrangement with Paramount office, other copyright issues, my website had RedShirt contact information on it, and many other fan video matters, I care not to re-hash. But, YOU are close minded and setting yourself as the expert here, Hmmm... LOL. Your application of the sag information is faulty. But then you won't not know that cause you... well, I made my point. I choose now not to try to educate you since obviously you don't accept anything from me due to your ego problem that is so unbecoming for a self-professed expert in fan videos and a clear biase of an Internet 'writer'. Let me leave you with a saying, 'the principle bar to understanding of an issue is ones personal contempt for the teacher prior to any personal investigation on the issue.'Now go ahead and have the last comment on this, I know you want it. Netwriter 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit inaccuracies, and personal biases
I'm not addressing this at anyone in particular, but people need to be very careful about their edits and assertations, especially when editing the Legal Issues section. Recent changes have labeled as improvements, when the opposite occured, with false or misleading information added. For example:
 * A recent edit listed Star Trek: Continuum as a free site, when it was definitely launched as a pay site in collaboration with MSN . Also, the site no longer exists under that name, and redirects to StarTrek.com. Thus, the added link was unnecessary.
 * A recent edit interpreted comments in David Wertheimer's posted letter as his personal opinions, when in fact, the text of the letter referred to Paramount's intentions. There is a difference.
 * "Legal consequences" in regards to that letter is misleading at best, as no legal proceedings were initiated. The orginal wording stating a "threat of legal prosecution" is more accurate.
 * Cow Creek Films is no longer the production company for New Voyages. The original wording was correct.

And also, please proofread your edits, so we don't end up with confusing sentences like Then-president of Paramount Digital Entertainment David Wertheimer stated Viacom said that his purpose was to target websites that were "selling ads, collecting fees, selling illegal merchandise or posting copyrighted materials." TheRealFennShysa 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have no problem with gramatical (I write the Queen's English at times) or stylistic changes (within reason). But I do take umbrage to edits and deletions that change the very meaning of what I've written. If you want to change something, back it up with links to sources. I might add that my wording in the sections that were changed were in fact based on articles of the day (I've added the links), they are not just my own private beliefs. Your choice of wording Netwriter suggests a willing resignation to corporate forces that just did not happen. Do your homework before trying to re-write history ... and how in heaven's name can you have a free subscription-based website?--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 14:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. In the spirit of fairness, I was unfortunately wrong about The Continuum site. However, also in fairness, I have done my research on other facts here and I have supplied some essential facts here, too. It think that any mis-catagorization of my factual input here based on a few human mistakes here, is wasting time. I can forgive such blame behavior of others here based on the fact that I know that WIKI readers are smart. I see large statementsof facts sometimes supplied with website footnotes and sometimes not. When did Cow Creek productions stop being the production company of any new New Voyages episodes? When did this info become public? Please supply your footnote. I will speak of specifics on this later when I have time. Let's just put forth a balanced and fair entry. Netwriter 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I should be noted that (I'm paraphrasing the rule printed in the entry) that 'the New Voyages crew have said they negociated a fan film rule with Paramount that their fan films could not be shown or used in a event that charges paid admission as with a scifi convention or meet-up'. However the is evidience all over the Internet that that is precisiely what the New Voyages crew is doing as CreationCons and elsewhere. Isn't this breaking their own rule and trust with Paramount? It sure looks bad for them and other fan film makers who seem to break any makeshift decent agreement to have peace with the copyright holders. By 'droppedby' 4/17/06


 * Care to point is to this "evidience"? And you just dropped by, huh? What a coincidence... Let's see, your IP address is 206.170.104.66, which resolves to "lapl-pub-branch-66.lapl.org", aka the Los Angeles Public Library - probably a public terminal, based on the varied edit history. Now I'm gonna take a wild guess here, based on the horrible spelling and grammar, not to mention the similar biases as well as the location, but... Hi there, Anthony "Droppedby" Genovese! Nice try, please play again! MikeWazowski 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can help here since others here seem to need to obivious dodge the question or choose to answer defensively speculating about other un-connected paraniod matters. (**Was that supposed to be an answer?) back on topic- The WIKI entry said. 'Cow Creek Films, the production company at the time for Star Trek: New Voyages, had contact with Paramount to successfully reverse a cease and desist order which resulted in a set of guidelines being verbally agreed on: No money exchanging can be involved with fan videos, including admission charges for screenings or for events hosting those screening, i.e. conventions or meet-ups.' Anyone can google or search on the New Voyages forums about their official convention appearances and find the facts and many photos. (Do you own homework, can't you?) NV had a table at Pasadena's CreationCon in '06 and '05 that event obviously charges admission. While on this topic, Hidden Frontier has had tables and screenings at many Gay-lactiCons '04 &'05, LA's Westercon, at many other scifi convention that obviously charges admission. (Is paraniodism being shown on this entry?) Netwriter 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here (other than Genovese posing as multiple editors) is that Genovese is confusing a line that was personal speculation from a past editor about the terms of the agreement (the "i.e. conventions or meet-ups" line) with the actual terms of the informal verbal agreement that the New Voyages crew has with Paramount. The fact of the matter is that none of us but the actual NV crew know the actual terms of the agreement, and they have no obligation to tell us anything - and that goes especially for you, Anthony. As a matter of fact, based on your past history, they'd do well to not even acknowledge your existence.
 * The important point is that the NV people aren't receiving any money for their series - they've gone out of their way to make it available for free as widely as they can. While a convention may be charging an admission fee, that is for the entire event, not specific exhibitions that may or may not have occured. However, I'm not even going to bother discussing HF with you, as your prejudices and biases on that front are widely known and documented, and I frankly don't want to read another one of your insane diatribes about how evil you think they are and/or how you think they personally wronged you. You long ago destroyed any credibility with anyone that you think you actually have. MikeWazowski 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edited the legal issues section to be close to Jack Marshall's original post on the TrekBBS (forgot to sign it, sorry). Tony has a point, NV have shown their video, so have HF, Exeter have done so as well. The point is that I think that this shows the opposite, that TPTB are really not interested in chasing minor infractions of something which is, at best, a verbal agreement. They have more commercial sense. If a fan film were to enter a film festival competition, where there was a prize of goods, favours or money, THAT would cause CBS legal to intervene. I can guarantee you will start to see more Trek fan films shown at film festivals as "exhibition films", ie not elligable for the contest. You'll start seeing films with creative commons licenses and machinima (which are classed as "new games material") first. Unfortunately for films like NV, HF & Exeter, they are too open to problems with CBS so that festival organisers will not show them on the big screen until they get some sort of clearance, official or otherwise, from CBS.


 * Showing them on a table at a Con, now that's a bird of a different feather ...


 * By the way, could we NOT have this turn into another troll fest like the SAG thread? If you haven't got new facts or expert or first hand opinion could you keep things below the diatribe threshold? Who, me? Well, yes, it IS personal experience and no, I'm not going to discuss it on a public forum ... yet.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Major revisions and deletions
I've combined the pre- and post-production sections into main section, "films in production." In doing so, I've done some weeding out, targeting specific projects with essentially nothing to show. This may rub some people the wrong way, but Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inclusion, not the least of which is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If these projects couldn't sustain a page of their own based on their merits, and I'm betting they couldn't, they don't belong in the article, as they're literally vaporware at the moment. These projects include:
 * Star Trek: Constellation - other than ideas, they have nothing to show. I can't find any evidence that anything's been shot, or images to show off, or even a trailer. Until they have something concrete to show of their plans, this one needs to stay deleted.
 * Star Trek: Lexington - Nothing new on their site, and no comments on their forum since October 2005 - I'd call this one dead for now.
 *  WRONG! Lexington is alive but ran into production trouble.  Next time, e-mail the producers before assuming anything. <-- unsigned comment by User:70.169.193.22
 * That last comment came direct from Lexington I believe, however I've pointed out to them that we can't revert the entry until they have something more concrete to show - shall we say that a trailer is a sign that they are in production? This would be in keeping with other entries.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 07:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make a comment about some of these "trailers" - if a trailer shows footage from an active production, I'm all for that... however, I've seen so many "trailers" that are simply some CGI scenes thrown together with titles and logos, with maybe a shot with an actor done only for that trailer - to me, that's not good enough, as that may be all we ever see from a group, once they discover how much work is really involved. It's happened before, and I daresay it's gonna happen again.
 * I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about groups In Production here? How can someone who has not completed production do a trailer of an "active production"? The Trailers are sneak peeks to the fans of the production work that has gone on to date. Hathaway's trailer has examples of their CGI, stills, test footage, two different makeup tests and more. I think that is ample evidence that their production is not, as it was so elegantly put, "vaporware"--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As to TheRealFennSysa's comment above about Lexington's status, personally, I agree with him. Production problems I can understand, but not even any talk amongst themselves on their own forum (I went back into the main page history and looked at the site for myself) for almost five months? That's more than just "production trouble." MikeWazowski 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodness, I hope I don't have to say it a fourth time. Methinks if a decision has to be continually defended it is not as rock-solid as it seems. I'm quite content to let the "vaporware" demonstrate it's level of solidity.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TheRealFennShysa 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Trek: Unity - no updates since November 2005, no episodes to show, or evidence of any serious work begun.


 * Certainly combining Pre & Post production will solve the problem of trying to deliniate between them. I was thinking along similar lines: you would really need to increase the categories to Pre-Production, In Production and post Production or, as here, give it up as too complex and just say "in production".


 * I've had my say about fan productions and how we are not predicting the future but reporting the present. I won't bore you with it again since it is obviously falling on deaf ears.


 * Constellation is actually a group of three projects, two of which are in trouble at the moment due to loss of staff. In my own reporting I have dropped them back to a concept group although I feel they still have the potential to perform.


 * Lexington - Have you been looking at the right forum? the forum is active although the sections dealing with Lexi production are pretty thin and have been hit by spammers. I'll have to see what the go is with them.


 * Unity have always played things close to their chest. Of the three I would say you are wrong with them.


 * I have no objection to trimming entries on groups in production however I fail to see the reason for the massive edits on the NV entry. It wasn't POV, it was factual, backed up with pertinent active links. Could you give me a reason not to revert it back from the fluff that you left? Could we perhaps discuss things first before wielding the editorial knife? Do you have a problem with 250 words? Frankly, IMHO if you can't find 250 words about a fan production it can't be very notable. Is it my writing style? If so, this is not a problem, you may replace it with something better that conveys the same information - instead you appear to have made the entry less interesting and informative, why? Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: "the fact that Wikipedia is not paper allows us to give more thorough treatments, include many relevant links, be more timely, etc."


 * Speaking of notability, why did you strike "However others are notable because they are ground-breaking in their media, such as Flash or Machinima."? Frankly the major notability of Stone Trek is in it's pioneering use of Flash as an animation medium. What other claim does it have to notability? Are we perhaps saying that fan productions can only be notable if they are "larger productions, with larger budgets, and in some cases are produced with the participation of actual Star Trek cast and crew." Isn't that a POV? And how does that apply to Stone Trek or any production for that matter besides New Voyages? I think pioneering use of media is legitimate cause for notability. Could you explain why I should not revert that as well?


 * To give you a little advance warning and time to discuss it, I intend adding "Borg War: The Movie" as a notable fan production because it is the first major work of Star Trek in machinima. If you have a problem with it please say so before I invest more time I can ill afford. Surely the purpose of this forum is to discuss things, NOT for you to give terse, jingoistic and incomplete reasons AFTER you have swept through leaving nought but stubble in your wake? Let's strive for consensus not confrontation.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 14:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times I have to say this: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. From that page: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Just because these guys have plans to make a movie doesn't mean they will make a movie. The ones I deleted certainly wouldn't stand up to a AfD if they were on their own, so why should it be any different here? If you want to list these groups on your own webpage, be my guest, go right ahead. But many of the entries I edited used to read like your own personal research, sometimes even in the first person and with POV commentary. That is something to be avoided, as also quoted from WP:NOT: It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research.
 * I looked very carefully at the three items I deleted, and definitely looked at their websites and forums... The Lexington forum in particular hasn't had any production news since last October or so. If they get up and running again, that's another story, but almost six months with no news speaks of the project being abandoned for now.
 * Did I say i wanted to revert it? Please read it again: I was giving qualified agreement, If I feel the need to submit them again I will do each one individually and give reasons.
 * Obviously you feel the need to defend your own position on the subject of crystal balls, writing five times as much as I did. I shall simplify: I won't convince you and you won't convince me. I believe other readers of this forum now have enough information to make their own decision. I see no need to take up space here by flogging a dead horse. Save it for specifics.
 * I cut the New Voyages section down because they already have a page on Wikipedia - most of the major pertinent information is still there, which is all an overview article needs. If readers want to find out more, they can go to the New Voyages page - there's no reason to throw everything onto this page. As far as I was concerned, I was replacing it with something more tightly written that conveys the same information.
 * It's not tightly written it is ego stroking and far more POV than mine was. The information does not appear on the NV web page. There is no reason to reduce it - what are you doing, saving paper?
 * I struck the line about machinima because there were no machinima entries on the page, and the line felt like personal opinion. Simple as that. And the article says that the more notable projects tend to be the larger ones - that's simple fact, as press coverage and reviews bear out. Stone Trek is also notable for the coverage and press its received, and its popularity (as refelected in how it ranks on Google) cannot be denied.
 * Of course - the popularity contest again.
 * I've got no problem with the Borg War thing, as it appears they are up for Machinima awards. None of the download links appear to be working, though. You might to make sure its actually online before writing it up.
 * I certainly shall ask about that.
 * 'You wrote: Surely the purpose of this forum is to discuss things, NOT for you to give terse, jingoistic and incomplete reasons AFTER you have swept through leaving nought but stubble in your wake? - Lets be a little more civil, shall we? Remember, you should assume good faith on these edits - I am trying to improve this article, whether you believe it or not. Characterizing my actions as destructive because you don't agree with them is starting down the slippery slope of personal attacks, and none of us need to go there.
 * TheRealFennShysa 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be destructive is to destroy, to take away, to be negative, to nullify that which came before. Objectively I see nothing creative in the Machinima or NV edits. To be creative is much, much harder. All I ask is discussion BEFORE cutting, is that too much to ask? Civil is as civil does, your actions speak far louder than your words.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ego-stroking in regards to New Voyages? Whose ego? I'm not connected with them in any way whatsover, or with ANY of these projects, save The Pepsi Generation in only the most roundabout way, as Ryan Johnson and I were both part of the same APA ten years ago. However, by any reasonable standard, New Voyages is certainly one of the most ambitious projects out there, as evidenced by their signing of major Trek names to the show, both in front of and behind the camera. You scoff at the popularity stuff, but it's a valid bar to judge projects with. There has to be some objective standard.
 * I totally agree that NV is the flagship of Trek fan films at the moment, that was why I chose it as the first entry to get upgraded to 250 words: general readers dropping onto this article will most probably want to read about them. A single screen-full of information(including the thumbnail) that encapsulates their past, present and future has been exchanged for two paragraphs that focusses on the one point that you are intent on labouring: James Cawley's laudable ability to attract professional Star trek talent. Is that all that New Voyages is about? Where are they based? How long have they been going? What was their reception by the Trek fan community? Where are the external links to back all this up? You have ten internal links - what about the Wired and Variety articles, surely we can get an external link there? Come now, if that is your idea of the flagship entry in this article - and are going to stop contributors such as myself from giving any more - then it will be a very poor article indeed. Anyone in Europe reading that would probably assume that it must be a Californian project with all the names in it rather than from Ticondroga, NY.
 * You say you lobotomised my entry because NV has their own article - why should that hold back the quality of the entries in this article? I don't know what your idea of this article is, but I would think it could be more than merely a page of links to other articles which is all those two paragraphs are. I recall reading something about webpages that said that no page should be more than three clicks from the top. There has to be more substance to this article than just a click-through in the search for buried information
 * As for the deletions of the films that barely even exist yet, its no secret that I thought there was stuff mentioned in the article that had no place here yet. I brought that up back at the end of January. I haven't had time to really look at all those entries until this week, when I finally went through them and saw what really did or didn't exist.TheRealFennShysa 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I shall say this a third time since it seems to have slipped right by you once again. I entitled my first response "limited agreement and a call for explanations", I said in my second post "I was giving qualified agreement" - you do know what that means don't you? It means that I agree with the minor qualifications that I stated. Civility went out the window when I you called them "vaporware". They have and still are struggling to make a mark in a field that is as Nick Caves said "a very expensive hobby". pujwl' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)