Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 9

Other eyes needed
Could I ask folks to take a look at the recent edits to "Disaster (Star Trek: The Next Generation)"? We have an IP editor adding what appears to me to be inappropriate material, though in good faith. While originally they only linked to a wiki, which had WP:SPS issues, they recently added this as a reference, which I believe is also inappropriate, but I also think the IP is starting to feel that I'm just being difficult. I've asked them to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page, but I'm sure they're feeling put upon at this point. Other editors weighing in would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Kirk the newer
I posted this question on the Kirk page as well, but there might be more people watching here.

Would an image of Chris Pine as Kirk be possible (and a good idea) in this article per the Non-free content criteria (I see Spock has the newer Spock)? We could of course use one of the free Pine-images, but since the article is about the character, I´d like an image of the character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that unless the article discusses Chris Pine's appearance as Kirk—perhaps contrasting his appearance with William Shatner's, or discussing special makeup used on-set—there's no reason to use copyrighted material to illustrate it. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article discuss Pine's appearance as Kirk, it would a strange article otherwise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read the James T. Kirk article in its entirety now, and found zero reliably-sourced prose about Chris Pine's appearance. I think maybe you're confusing my use of the word "appearance".  I'm saying that nothing reliably discusses how Chris Pine physically looks as Kirk, which is what we'd need to justify using copyrighted material in the article.  Of course the article has information about Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk, but unless there's something about his portrayal itself that requires non-free content to understand (and I found none in the article), we don't include it.  Does that make sense?  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  17:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto fourthords, and hence my oblique comment on the article talk page wondering whether the Quinto-Spock image met NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With what's in the article presently, it doesn't seem like there's a strong NFCC justification, although given that there's vulcan ears and such involved and that tends to get talked about there might be more info out there to justify it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies., to me it doesn´t make much sense. The article doesn´t discuss Shatner-Kirks physical appearance either, probably because sources have used pictures, which makes sense: how does different incarnations of characters look? Pictures! They are the easy way to increase readers understanding. Hannibal Lecter, Aragorn (OH! there´s an animated Kirk as well!), Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump, Gaius Julius Caesar (Rome character). If there is a character to depict, even if the chararacter/actor looks very alike, WP tends to have a picture of the character (Miles O'Brien (Star Trek)), which is a good thing.


 * To quote the essay WP:Other stuff exists: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Of course, "correctly" is a matter of opinion.


 * Off topic, I think the article should have more on the "Shatner pause" (it pops up in the "Franchise "reboot" section), I wonder if I can find any RS about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I glanced at this last month when it was posted, but I've just taken a serious look at it, and I'm wondering about our criteria for including an article as part of our project. For example, Benedict Cumberbatch was the most-viewed Star Trek-related article from 2017-04-01 to 2017-04-30.  Yes, Cumberbatch did star in Into Darkness for an hour or so, but so ends his connection to the franchise.  Unlike Sir Patrick, Trek isn't something for which he's extraordinarily well-known outside the fandom, and he hasn't continued to emphasize his role in the fandom like Takei.  Without looking, I'd put Cumberbatch under the WikiProjects for London, actors/actresses, and Sherlock Holmes if one exists, but not Star Trek.  What think we?  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Otherwise, you could argue that Idris Elba should also be in the project. Mind you, if we're going to remove Cumberbatch, then we should also remove Eric Bana, which is an FA. Miyagawa (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a pretty nutso fan, and yet I had to think long and hard to remember who Bana is and what his connection to the franchise is; I didn't even remember Mr. Elba's name. As to their quality-ranking, is it (a) a bummer that the Trek Project is losing an FA from our cap, or (b) inappropriate to claim such an article under our umbrella when the subject has such an ephemeral association to Trek?  So… do the two of us (over the span of 3.81 months) count as a consensus?  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Barge of the Dead" GAN
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated the episode "Barge of the Dead" for GAN. While there is not as much information out there on this episode in comparison to my previous work with "Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager), I believe that is a comprehensive overview of the episode. I would greatly appreciate anyone's help with the review. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Barge of the Dead" FAC
Giving the community a heads up that I've nominated "Barge of the Dead" as a featured article candidate (of the Dead/archive1&redirect=no here). Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek abbreviations
An IP editor has been changing the abbreviations in the Star Trek abbreviations template. I have reverted it twice, but am wary of doing it again, so as not to violate the revert war policy. Can an editor take care of this? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since we're not claiming these abbreviations are official or widely-used, they're effectively just a Wikipedia shorthand developed by this WikiProject. Furthermore, since the articles that transclude the template aren't being changed too, it needs to stay the same until a consensus can develop for any change.  Also, WP:BRD.  I'll keep an eye on the template; thanks for the heads-up!  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only presume it's humour driven vandalism to try to force the "STD" abbreviation for Discovery. Miyagawa (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone around?
Talk:Teleporter ugh. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Where No Man Has Gone Before
Where No Man Has Gone Before, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Elim Garak
Someone at the Teahouse Teahouse thinks we have the wrong pic here, and I can't tell for sure. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like Garak to me, honestly. It's not a military uniform, but it doesn't look like Garak either. See for comparison. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then again, the clothes seems to match the "Reunited with Enabran Tain in 2371" pic here: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be the angle. Could be that the clothes got recycled. Either way, I think a better pic wouldn't be amiss. DonIago (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No argument there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty obviously is Garak, but the picture they use on his page at Mamory Alpha is a bit better. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's got that mischievous maybe-I'm-going-to-feed-you-to-the-cenobites look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Starspotter
I really hate to do this, but I feel I need to raise the question of whether the edits to Star Trek-related articles by are ultimately a net positive to this project.

Per the above thread, I just reverted many of their edits in which they added information about how a reviewer considered epsiodes to be "must-watch"...more than half of the episodes from DS9 and ENT, which ultimately rendered the "must-watch" desgination essentially meaningless as an indicator of significance. These edits were made very quickly, without edit summaries, and presumably without consulting with this project (or anyone else) first. In their defense, they haven't edited for the past two weeks, so they may not have been aware of the discussion, but I question whether there should have been a need for that discussion to begin with.

Since the beginning of this year they've multiple warnings regarding their edits to Star Trek-related articles, including canvassing with regards to an AFD.

I have concerns about many of their other edits, primarily regarding the reception of episodes, but I simply don't have the bandwidth to review all of it.

While Starspotter has made many contributions to Star Trek-related articles that are likely beyond reproach and that have improved the quality of said articles, I'm nevertheless left wondering how long it will be before they next make problematic edits that it falls to other members of this community to discuss and potentially clean-up.

I'd love to get a response from you on this to the effect that you understand the concerns I've established here and that you will a) be more careful to provide edit summaries (which you have also been advised about in the past) and b) will consult this project proactively before making large-scale edits to multiple articles. If you're unwilling to agree to these two requests, I would feel forced to ask whether a topic ban might be appropriate to prevent further disruption. I don't feel that these are significant asks, but if you do, I'm happy to discuss further. I hope it's understandable that it's uncomfortable when your evidently well-intentioned edits nevertheless place other editors in the role of needing to either ask you to self-revert or take on the task of unwinding your edits themselves.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I get that you feel he is creating a maintenance burden and you feel a certain obligation to fix it.
 * Do I wish he was a bit more discerning about his sources, yes, very much so but I do believe his edits are made entirely in good faith and on balance more good than bad. -- 109.79.161.157 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Starspotter means well, but well-intentioned conduct that's nevertheless disruptive at some point stops being a net positive, and asking them to stop by here before making edits to a large number of articles isn't IMO imposing a major burden. Nor is asking them to be more diligent about using edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is certainly fair to ask for edit summaries, and certainly wise to ask before making mass changes (or changing stable Featured articles) but I have not yet seen anything to suggest a ban, that seems like an extreme measure and at most a distant prospect. I hope Starspotter is taking a voluntary break and will be a bit more cautious when he returns. -- 109.79.161.157 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely prefer it not go as far as a topic ban (I haven't seen anything to suggest they should be banned from WP entirely, though I do have concerns), but if they're unable or unwilling to edit more thoughtfully going forward, then I'm more worried about the problematic edits we won't catch than the ones we've caught. DonIago (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Starspotter for me is a prolific editor whose contributions, whether constructive or rough, kind of run together in my head. That probably has more to do with my diminished participation in Wikipedia the last few years. In other words, I can't offer much specific feedback on their behavior. But, from a cursory look, I see a lot of engagement on their talk page from multiple editors with nudges toward slowing down, being more thoughtful/deliberate about sources, and (reading between the lines) defining the distinction between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. (Huh: I've provided three rounds of feedback along these lines in his four years of editing.) It looks like Starspotter responds with a combination of "okay, got ya!" and "I didn't hear that". Everything about his edits scream "big fan doing their best to edit in good faith."
 * I wonder whether Starspotter would be open to some kind of mentorship. Or maybe plucking one of the articles they're interested in improving into Draft: space (if that's appropriate) and going to town on it with feedback on content and style from the rest of the project. The latter might be a good sandbox to provide feedback in a way where the feedbackers are not saying, "Oh, geez, I need to go revert or ask them to revert a bunch of edits across 20 episode articles" or some such. A chance to work through style and sourcing kinks in one place before running wild on the rest of the project.
 * Invoking a topic ban seems to be jumping the gun. There's more to your original post than just that phrase, but it stands out to me -- and I worry invoking it might distract from your goal of ensuring Starspotter receives and responds to feedback and contributes positively. Starspotter seems to have been away for a couple of weeks (six days before your latest pair of talk page posts, and 14? since starting this thread). So, DonIago, one thing I'd put on your plate is to just check/ask where your stress/anxiety level is at when you see Starspotter's name in your watchlist. (FWIW, this curiosity came to mind because I saw NadirAli's name while scrolling Starspotter's talk page and I had a pang of anxiety remembering how challenging it was for me to log in and see a bunch of their edits.) I don't really have a question here or advice, so just got dot-dot-dot let the ellipsis close this out ... --EEMIV (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've struck that part of my original post alluding to a topic ban. I certainly don't want it to come to that, and I hope nobody else does either, but I do feel that I've seen enough questionable editing from Starspotter that I am inclined to subject their edits to heightened scrutiny, especially when they're frequently made without summaries. Really, just slowing down and letting other editors know what they're doing, especially when it involves mass-editing, would probably be a win for everyone. DonIago (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm also one of the editors that has that has asked Starspotter to be more thoughtful on their talk page. They always thank editors for their words, and I think they do make a conscious effort at being more thoughtful. Whenever an editor reverts one of their Starspotter reviews, they never reply with any kind of edit warring or back and forth reverting. Starspotter, IMO, operates from a purely good faith space, and is obviously a fan, reading about episodes and posting reviews they think are relevant. That said, Starspotter is a work in progress and still has some "tempering" needed to decide which reviews are noteworthy and from a good source. I cannot support any kind of ban.


 * I think one of the reasons we as other Star Trek editors are "tired" of this is because when Starspotter stumbles upon a new source of ST reviews, they tend to visit 20 or so episodes in rapid fire succession adding these reviews. If other editors feel that the source is not good, you have to revert 20 or so edits - which can easily get on your nerves. I would suggest a mixing of EEMIV's mentoring suggestion and ask Starspotter that when they find a new source, just post on one ST article. Let the other editors see it and, if it stands as a worthy source, come back in a few days and add to other ST articles. But give us a chance to see these reviews and have a discussion about the source's legitimacy on just one article. Less work and headache for everyone involved. StarHOG (Talk) 13:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. Generally, they simply need to be more collaborative and/or less proactive about mass-edits. DonIago (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While we are on the topic of collaboration and communication, I felt that the previous discussion ended a bit prematurely and if it had gone a little further it might have set a better example for the future.
 * Clearly there was agreement that the particular "must watch" list articles were low quality and a problem, but there was no further discussion about what action to take. It wasn't clear that DonIago was going to ask StarSpotter to revert/remove the references (but I did notice that DonIago added a note about that on StarSpotters Talk page). I would not have predicted that DonIago would then take on the burden of doing it all himself, in a relatively short matter of time. It all seems a bit rushed, and if the discussion had gone on just a little longer, and the intention had been made clearer in advance, and a bit more time given, DonIago need not have taken the burden (and any annoyance he might be feeling) all on himself. For example, I could have offered to go through all the Enterprise articles (which I'm slowly doing anyway, adding Nielsen ratings mostly) and helped to remove the low quality references from that group of articles. Sharing the burden might avoid editors getting "tired" of dealing with similar problems.
 * So in the future if there is a problem, it would be great if we could continue the discussion a little longer to include suggested solutions, and maybe divide and conquer when it comes to taking action. -- 109.78.204.208 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't "close the loop" on the previous thread as well as I might have. When nobody responded for over a week after I said it looked like we had a consensus, I rather took that as people agreeing to roll back the edits in principle but not quite having the bandwidth to get into the work of it. I ended up having that bandwidth, and there wasn't (and still isn't) any indication as to if or when Starspotter will return, so I decided it was a good time to unwind them before more edits were made to the articles in question and further complicated any reversion work. As it is, I'm not certain I got all of them. DonIago (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to have annoyed you enough to kick off this discussion, it would have been fine otherwise. In any case, you didn't miss much and I'm sure we will get to them as we notice them. -- 109.79.68.55 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 109: This was the straw that broke the camel's back. As other editors have mentioned, Starspotter has been advised multiple times to slow down and be more thoughtful. At some point...and I'm not saying we're at that point...AGF gets strained to the breaking point and we transition from "maybe this time they'll take our advice to heart" to "we need to consider taking steps to stop further well-intentioned but significantly disruptive editing". Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest holding off on further discussion of this topic until Starspotter has a chance to speak. They don't seem to be active right now and I, for one, would be upset if I came back from a hiatus and found a week of people talking about me! StarHOG (Talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I left a notification on their talk page pointing them over here for when they return. --EEMIV (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Class M planet at AfD
Just want to let those interested know that Class M planet is nominated for deletion and discussed here. Daranios (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Was there not a page for this already somewhere? (Maybe there was no relevant Wikipedia page and I was thinking of the Memory Alpha page for Class M planet.) I see the above version was only newly created on 25 July 2021‎ by User:SnappingTurtle. I'm not sure there's enough for a separate page. Maybe SnappingTurtle has a plan to do more with it (such as explaining M for Minshara) but moving it to DRAFT until it is more substantial might be good idea. Thanks for keeping us posted. -- 109.79.177.180 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, it has been relisted. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you know?
I was thinking that with the 20th anniversary of Enterprise coming up in September it might be nice to get a "Did you know" entry to highlight it and I'd like to run it past editors interested in Star Trek before proposing it. Here's a rough draft of what I was thinking of suggesting:

Did you know: The opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise used the U2 song Beautiful Day as a temp track before the song Faith of the Heart was chosen. The series premiered September 26, 2001.

The website of Montgomery and Co, the company that created the title credits, contains a video of the credits including the U2 song. Archive Copy (which does include a working copy of the video) Brannon Braga also mentioned this on the Bluray commentary.


 * 1) Did you know this already?
 * 2) Do you think it is interesting?
 * 3) Can you suggest a different alternative or better way to highlight Enterprise on Wikipedia before this September?

This is something I didn't know until recently and I added it to the article Star Trek: Enterprise. I think it is interesting and a little controversial because people love to hate that theme song. I don't know if there is another better way to sneak in the secondary message that Enterprise turns 20 this September.

Thanks. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I figure if it was a terrible idea someone would have said something by now. I had hoped maybe someone already familiar with the process might suggest how to improve the formatting but expect if I read though the documentation I'll be able to figure it out. If I get around to submitting it in the next few weeks as a "Did you know" item I'll post a link here. -- 109.79.80.88 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that this is a bit too trivial for DYK, but if you want to pursue it, I wouldn't plan to stand in your way or such. However, per WP:DYK, I feel I have to ask, what new or expanded article is this intended to highlight, as that appears to be DYK's mission statement? In other words, is one or more of the articles that you've linked to new or expanded? DonIago (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. The above detail was something I recently (within the past few months) added to the Star_Trek:_Enterprise article, so I know it's new. I have asked myself many times "what were they thinking" and for seeing the credits with the temp track, it becomes clearer what they were trying (but utterly failed) to achieve. It also seems like more fun to me since it includes an actual video. Nonetheless I see your point, this isn't a good fit for the stated goals of WP:DYK, the article has only been marginally expanded since it became a Good Article and I see the previous DYK nomination was from around that same time.
 * Of the other articles I've tried to expand and improve the most, namely Carbon Creek (Star Trek: Enterprise) which I added to a fair bit, and Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) which I resurrected, there aren't any particularly facts from those articles I think interesting enough to highlight. I'm unlikely to bring any article to all the way to GA either, so WP:DYK probably isn't the place to go. As I said before, I was surprised to realize it had already been twenty years since the show launched and thought it might be fun to highlight it in some way before September 26, 2001. I suppose I'll have to think of another way or let it pass. Thanks anyway. -- 109.76.205.45 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I like the idea and I admire your ambition and the work you've put into improving articles, I just have concerns that DYK would be out of scope. But I have little experience there, so I could be wrong! DonIago (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Slipstream (science fiction) at AfD
The article Slipstream (science fiction) is nominated for deletion and discussed here. The article currently contains material about the faster-than-light travel methods of that name appearing in Voyager and Discovery. Daranios (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Paramount's reaction to web/fan series
Should we add or mention the reaction by Paramount in the fan series and movies (Star Trek Continues managed to finish before the crackdown, but Axanar was aborted because of it) respective articles?

Rbanffy (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources for such a reaction? If so, add Paramount's reaction to what article?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Review from Tor.com
For many years Keith DeCandido has been rewatching and writing reviews of Star Trek for Tor.com. He's also the author several Star Trek books. His reviews are thorough and are often a useful reliable source of production details that is a lot easier to reference than a big old book. Most of you probably already know this, but I say it in case any less experienced editors might be reading and consider getting more involved in editing Star Trek articles.

DeCandido recently (October 2021) finished reviewing Voyager season 7, so there are already whole lot of quality reviews that can be added to Star Trek Voyager episode articles (and all of DS9 and TNG too). My humble suggestion is that this might be a way for newer editors to get started with the WikiProject Star Trek, as adding these reviews is an obvious improvement to most articles. (Note: if it is already Featured article or Good Article quality then editors might want to discuss on the Talk page first.) On a per episode level it is a small task, to start by referencing the review for at least one thing, the review itself or some production detail. On a project level as a whole it is much bigger task to try and see the reviews added to every article, and The A.V. Club is another source of quality reviews too. (Some editors may dislike the homogenous approach but I've never had any qualms about consistently adding quality sources, the equivalent in film articles was always to add reviews by critic Roger Ebert, an early adaptor when it came to publishing his reviews online.) I suggest it instead of doing it myself because the task is huge, and also I prefer not to edit Voyager episode articles, although occasionally I end up doing so despite myself.

DeCandido has promised an "Enterprise Rewatch, which will kick off in November." I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's been 20 years since Enterprise premiered, "oh boy". I will probably add those to the Enterprise articles as they come out, but who knows what could happen. -- 109.77.207.153 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To make it easier to find a review for a specific episode it is helpful to know how to do site specific search on Google, which is achieved by including the search term  along with the name of the episode you are searching for. DeCandido also writes a season overview article after having reviewed each season and those articles link to most of the episodes, and he usually remarks on the best and the worst of the season. For example here are links to each of the Voyager season overview articles: Overview Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, Season 6, Season 7. If this is already obvious to you that's fine, maybe you would suggest it to someone else you know who you think might be interested in trying to edit some Project Star Trek articles for a change. I'm writing this on the premise that there are always far more readers than there are active editors, and that maybe some of those readers might be encouraged to pick an episode article and start trying to improve it. It's a longshot I know, but no harm in trying. We all had to start somewhere. -- 109.77.207.153 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Book references
Please note that user User:Sundayclose is removing references from various Star Trek episode articles. Deleting references seems counter-productive, whatever point about citation style Sundayclose is trying to make.

See also:

Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode) ‎

The Passenger (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

The Nagus ‎

Vortex (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

etc...contribs list at offset for 2021-11-08

I thought I was more-or-less following the example of existing Star Trek articles. (For example Past Prologue lists several books after the other references.) I know I could use the simpler more common referencing style but that gets messy when repeatedly referencing individual pages from the same book over and over. I do not want to argue about reference style. I am going to pause until it becomes a bit clearer how the people of Project Star Trek would prefer repeated references to the same book to be done. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been a Star Trek fan since the first episode of TOS in 1966, so I don't take problems in ST articles lightly. First of all, I am not "trying to make" a style for the article. The style for that article is already well established. I am trying to keep one style in the article rather than mixing styles, per MOS:VAR. For the benefit of other editors, here is an exchange of comments I had previously with IP 109.79.178.97 on the article's talk page in an effort to help them understand the problem. But they are not willing to accept Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically for citations and references:

(beginning of previous comments) This article contained a footnote referring a book called the Nitpickers guide. This was not an inline reference so it was not entirely clear where in the article this book reference was being used. It is not the most common reference style but many of the Star Trek episode articles use this style of reference and I've seen it in a few other places too. It is a bit more complicated and I might not be getting it exactly right but it seems like a good way to reference books, especially when many different pages are being referenced.

Sidenote: It was not clear why The Nitpickers Guide was added in the first place[1](way back in 2007) but it doesn't seem to have been added to support anything specific. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I added a reference to another book The Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann). The reference was to Google books which includes extensive previews. The previews include several pages of that book that are relevant to the production of this episode. I added the book reference but I did not immediately add production details for this episode. An editor unfamiliar with this style of reference deleted both book references. I restored the references and then made use of the book reference to start the Production section. The editor again deleted both of the book references,[2] apparently not having seen that the book reference was now needed by the production section. If editors feel it is necessary to discuss the citation style and use another style WP:STYLEVAR then it would be helpful if they lead by example and reformat the references in the way they think is more appropriate but deleting the references entirely does not improve the article.

Please restore the book references[3]. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:STYLEVAR does not support your argument; in fact, it opposes it: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". You do not have a substantial reason to change the style that is already well established in the article just because you like it. Read WP:MOS and WP:CITE. You need to use the style consistent with the way the article is already written, regardless of what's in other articles. Styles can differ across articles, but not within articles. In this case, if you want a reference in List of References, cite it in the article and it will appear in the list of references. If you simply want a link to the websites (and if there is a good reason to do so), it can go in the External Links section. It's not a matter of me being "unfamiliar" with anything; it's following Wikipedia's style. So, no, I will not restore your inappropriate edits. You clearly have not read the links I have provided. It is your responsibility to read and abide by them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:V. The book reference is needed to support the Production section. If you want to done in a particular way it is not clear how deleting the book references helps achieve that end. I point to WP:STYLEVAR not to support an argument but because I do not want to argue about styles all. This article already included one book reference and I thought I was following the existing style. (See also Past Prologue which includes a list of books after the references.) -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not following the existing style for this article. Another article may not use the same style, and in fact Past Prologue uses a different style. What is it that you don't understand about: You can't mix styles within the same article? I don't think I can state this any more clearly: If you cite the source in the article properly, the citation will show up in the Reference List. Is the problem here that you don't know how to cite, or is it that you don't want to cite? If you don't know how to cite, AGAIN, read WP:CITE. If you need more detailed help, place on your talk page and someone will come along to help. But don't ask for help if you're expecting someone to tell you that you can mix styles within the same article. It's pointless and a waste of time to complain about how you can't do it the way you want to, or someone reverted your edits, or other articles do it the way you want it, or you haven't taken a few minutes to actually read WP:CITE. If you ask for help, ask how to cite a source so that it is placed in the Reference List. If the problem is simply that you don't want to cite and don't care about Wikipedia's rules of writing style, then this is not the place for you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (end of previous comments)
 * This IP simply refuses to accept that a style cannot be changed within an article, even if other articles differ in style. I have serious doubts that the IP has read WP:MOS or WP:CITE. The only way to accomplish changing the style in one Star Trek article is to get a clear consensus to set a consistent style in all Star Trek articles (or at least all articles for a specific series such as DS9), and then (and here's the big problem) change every Star Trek article to conform to that style. If someone wants to take on that massive project, be my guest. I'm having a hard enough time getting this IP to maintain consistency in just one article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because of fractious disputes about citation and English styles, there's not really any way to have a consistent style across all Star Trek articles—you'd have to go to the talk page of each one and propose changes. Realistically, you can change it as much as you want and if no one complains, then it's not a problem, but obvious that's not the case here. You should follow whatever the original article's citation scheme was to start with.
 * If a citation is lose (unattached inline) and it's been there randomly for years, I don't think it makes much sense to keep it, period. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the style that is already established for citing should be followed. It would be very simple to cite the source somewhere in the article, then it would appear in the References section. That's what I can't get the IP to understand (or they don't want to understand). Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting references. Styling references. I'm talking in one direction, Sundayclose is talking in a different direction. The guidelines WP:MOS and WP:CITE are long and talk about many different things, but the part of WP:CITE that seems relevant here is WP:CITESHORT, which resembles the existing formatting I was trying to follow for book references.

User:David Fuchs several articles included unattached references to "The Nitpickers Guide" (they all seem to have been added in 2007 and as a general reference not to cover any specific facts), and deleting those is somewhat understandable. But in an article like Move Along Home where I used a refence to the book "The Deep Space Nine Companion" to start the Production section it is not clear why someone would delete the reference to that book, leaving the shortlinks "Edrmann and Block (2000)" without the corresponding long full book reference. -- 109.79.169.117 (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IP 109, the article does not use WP:CITESHORT, which has a "Notes" section where the citations from the article show up and a "References" section that gives details about the sources that are cited in the article. You are ignoring and (have been repeatedly ignoring) the more salient part of WP:MOS, which I have given you more than once: "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that ' When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. ' ". The Arbitration Committee has binding authority over guidelines, policies, you, me, and everyone else who edits Wikipedia. So, again, you can't change the article's style without consensus. Once again, you want to mix styles in an article, and that is quite contrary to WP:MOS. As you have been told, it would be extremely simple to get the source in the References section: cite the source appropriately somewhere in the article, and voila! It's in the References section. If you don't know how to do that, give me the information on the source here and exactly where you want the citation in the article and I'll do it for you. But instead of taking the simple solution for your concern, you want to browbeat us on talk pages because you can't get your way. Now, it's time for you to drop the stick and move on. Continuing to push and push for something that clearly is not supported is disruptive editing and a waste of everyone's time. This is the last time I repeat this information here. If you continue refusing to get the point or continue forum shopping on different talk pages, and especially if you unilaterally decide to make changes to an article contrary to the current style, my next discussion on this will be at WP:ANI. Then you can either defend your disruptive editing there or lose your editing privileges. If you need an official warning to stop disruptive editing, consider this the warning. I'm finished responding here unless someone besides you decides to weigh in. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The argument to "not change a style unless there is a consensus" doesn't hold water with me. If an editor is "cleaning up" an article and finds that references can be ordered or displayed more effectively, then they should go for it. Our job here isn't to get bogged down with a "norm" or even how similar articles "do it" but to make the article better, more clear, more organized for our readership. If the changes being made accomplish this, then by all means press forward. StarHOG (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is fine, we all have them. But it doesn't supersede WP:MOS or the Arbitration Committee. Those do hold water. My opinion opinion is that keeping a consistent style isn't getting "bogged down", and in this case keeping the style doesn't make the article any less readable, nor does it deprive the reader of information. The information can easily be incorporated into the current style, which is what I have suggested numerous times to IP 109, but that has repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. And how much changing and mixing styles is enough and how much is too much? If I want to change all the Star Trek articles to a mixed style that includes an occasional citation that shows up in a References section, and a few with APA style of noting the author and date of a source in parentheses instead of a citations, and a few more in which I just name the source in the text of the article with no citation at all, that should be OK with the rationale that it's OK to change and mix styles. It would satisfy some editors, but to a lot of readers it would be confusing. And what's wrong with that; we're writing for ourselves not the readers, right? There's a reason the Arbitration Committee said no changing styles within an article; they didn't just make that decision on a whim. But the bottom line is, we don't change the style of an article to accommodate one user who won't make the slightest attempt at putting the information they desire in the article using the current style. So in this case, there is no change in style (or mixing styles) without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Why did you place opinion in italics? Do you think this discussion is someplace for your personal attacks against an editor for making a comment that doesn't side with you? You're just restating your argument over and over again. You have my "opinion," I suggest the two of you wait for more editors to weigh in to form a consensus. StarHOG (Talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I italicized the word probably for the very same reason you italicized it: to emphasize a point. Italics is often used for emphasis. If I had identified my opinion first, I would have italicized it to set it apart from a policy or guideline. So to address your concern, I have edited my comment above and italicized "opinion" in describing my opinion. If you are still offended, I can edit it further and remove the italics from my first mention of the word "opinion". If you think italicizing the word "opinion" is a personal attack, then perhaps you should make a complaint at WP:ANI. But you might want to remove the italics in your edit so an admin won't be confused as to who exactly is making the personal attack. I've never stated that I oppose a consensus. In fact, I've repeatedly said that a consensus is needed to change the style in the article. I've never stated that I oppose waiting for other editors to weigh in. I understand how the consensus process works. Why do you assume I don't? Sundayclose (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS the Kobayashi Maru
This week's Star Trek Prodigy episode caused Kobayashi Maru to ping on my watchlist, and I've looked at it for the first time in forever. It is in poor form and I've dropped a request for contributors to chime in on whether I'm alone in that belief; please consider chiming in. --EEMIV (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I decided, what the heck, let me just be bold and start a re-write. Assuming so major opposition, at this point real-world production resources around TWoK and ST'09 would be great, along with the perpetually needed "real-world impact" stuff. --EEMIV (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dumped in the useful stuff I found via a NYPL database search, which mostly amounted to a useful if minimal line when summarized. I've got some other thoughts on it but I've left those comments on the relevant talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Production notes in articles
I'm a little concerned about the growing amount of production notes in articles. Not only are they borderline trivia, I'm concerned that they may be getting copied from source material. I don't own the sources quoted, so I can't check on this. For example, the production area of Return of the Archons reads like a trivia who's who for this episode, and the way it is written does not look like a paraphrase. Can anyone owning this source material check? And what are people's feelings on this seemingly pile-on of trivia in the articles? StarHOG (Talk) 04:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't verify the source and absent evidence of plagiarism, I think you have to assume good faith. As for whether details are trivia, that seems like something that can be decided on a page-by-page basis. In the context of a "casting" section in a more fleshed-out episode I wouldn't find most of it too extraneous, though I'd probably condense returning credits rather than listing them one after another. It would probably also demonstrate its utility if there's non-fan sources referencing these roles (such as actor obits and the like.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:SOURCEACCESS. As was already said, unless you have specific reason to doubt you have to assume good faith (but it might still be worth checking Memory Alpha to try and make sure editors have not copied things a little too directly). In the article you mention the most used source is The Star Trek Encyclopedia and if you want to double check things the Web Archive has multiple copies of that book freely available to borrow (free registration required). -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

recent-changes on the project page
I think it's dead: WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/changes —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was broken. It seems to have been fixed in the past few days. -- 109.78.204.126 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Enterprise episode articles
As you may be aware, for many years Keith R. A. DeCandido has been rewatching and reviewing episodes of Star Trek for Tor.com (Tor Books is part of Macmillan publishing). He was an author of several Star Trek books, I believe he is a very reliable source, a reference to his reviews would be an improvement to any Star Trek episode article on Wikipedia. Improving Star Trek Enterprise episode articles is something I have been trying to doing for a while now. DeCandido has reached the end of his reviews of season 1 and I am also going to take this moment as an opportunity to briefly reassess the quality of the Wikipedia Star Trek episode articles for Enterprise season 1. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my estimation of the quality of these articles, but maybe I'm not being strict enough, so I am also broadly asking the question to other editors if I'm on the right track. Do you think my assessment is about right? Am I overrating the articles or underrating them? (The season 4 episode article Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise) is rated as a Good article but seems overrated to me because the details are a little thin, but maybe I'm being overly critical.) In short in think most episode articles for season 1 are approximately C-class at least. The quality of some may arguably be higher, (Dear Doctor and Acquisition (Star Trek: Enterprise) were already rated as good articles), maybe the article for The Andorian Incident should be rated as B class. Maybe the article Two Days and Two Nights, is on the lower end of C class quality (it has references and coverage so I think it just barely scrapes into C class). There are a two episode articles that could potentially go into much greater depth. It is difficult to know with the premiere episode for example Broken Bow how much detail can and should be included there rather than in the articles for the whole series or the article for season 1 but I do not think there is too much information there yet. There was a behind the scenes documentary of the episode Vox Sola so I think that episode has more potential for expansion than most. I think many of the episode articles would benefit from including a single non-free image to "significantly increase readers' understanding". (Reusing one of the low resolution images previously released by Paramount for publicity purposes might help meet some of the requirements.) That is not a ball of yarn I want to untangle myself, but another editor might see it as an interesting opportunity.

So again, do you think this assessment of the quality of the Enterprise season 1 articles is about right? If I've underestimated or overestimated the quality I'd appreciate if editors would take this as an opportunity to comment, provide feedback, and perhaps suggest potential improvements that might be needed or minor rough edges that could be smoothed off to further increase the article quality. -- 109.79.170.138 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone? I'm not looking for detailed review or expert opinion or anything (that would be nice though), just some reassurance that I'm on the right track and that other editors agree. Do you think the Enterprise season 1 episode article quality ratings are about right, or possibly underrated or overrated? Feel like anything significant is missing from any of the season 1 episode articles? Comments welcome. -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a few years ago I went through every TOS episode and streamlined the leads while making them fairly uniform. It burned me out, so 1) I haven't tried for any of the other series, and 2) I haven't gone through Enterprise and looked at the articles in a long time. As a fan, I have to say that Enterprise was overall a weak series, with poor writing until the 4th season, when it was too late. But I will try and take a look and let you know my thoughts. It may take some time, so please be patient. Of course, remember there is nothing wrong with bold edits. You might try doing a few articles in your new style, and if people hate it, they'll let you know. StarHOG (Talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that you mention it I could probably do a better job with the lead sections, I'll try to review that. As for burnout I understand, I don't have the motivation to improve the episode articles for DS9 even though there are many smaller potential improvements (and I don't have any enthusiasm to work on Voyager articles and they are even more badly in need of improvement). I don't consider myself a fan per se but I sure do seem to end up watching it when it is on. I had more time to kill than usual in 2021 ... and the show seemed to be in regular reruns and was also on Netflix and I figured I should fill in the gaps (turned out I'd watched all the best bits of season 4 already but forgotten about it.) Many the Wikipedia episode articles were of such low quality I figured I could bring them up quite a bit and I knew there had to be plenty of sources out there if I just looked hard enough. (A lot of digging through the Web Archive to properly confirm things but it was when I found the Magazine Rack section of the free library at the Internet Archive and found some good sources I was able to add a Production section to various articles.) I don't think I've made any bold changes to the Enterprise episode articles, just plodding deliberate changes, including more information but nothing finely polished like in Featured articles. I guess if there was really any issue with the kinds of changes I've been making to the Enterprise articles someone would have commented more forcefully by now. I certainly hope most of the Enterprise episode articles are at a standard that there should be no excuse for deleting any of them, but again I was just hoping for some reassurance that I wasn't underrating or overrating the quality too much since that part is more subjective. -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

GNG?
Does this meet Wikipedia:Notability: Starship Excelsior? --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I count one good citation, two middling, two unacceptable, and twenty primary; one good source does not an article make. I'd say: redirect it to, and use the three good-enough citations to rewrite the blurb at Star Trek fan productions.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fourthords. It's pretty on the fence, and you just can't make a solid article out of the existing coverage based on what I went looking for in addition to the sources there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Like many Star Trek articles it suffers from too much fan enthusiasm and not enough reliable secondary sources (see also Star Trek: New Voyages, Star Trek: The Continuing Mission, and frankly any other article attempting to document a fan production). I would assume WP:GOODFAITH and give them a chance to fix it, which is why I tagged the article for excessive use of a primary source. If you apply the standards strictly it might be difficult to justify allowing any of the fan production pages to remain. -- 109.77.199.246 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Lead image?
Please join a discussion of which of two fair-use images should be used as the lead at Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I join?
Can i join the project or can someone add me in the project? First Officer Commander Chakotay (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Instructions for joining the project are listed on the Participants page: WikiProject Star Trek. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI: The "instructions" on how to join on the Participants page are very low quality; incomplete and confusing. :-( It only says to add the Userbox to your home page and implies that maybe a bot automatically adds the name to the list; I waited several days for this not to happen. Apparently one has to edit the page and add his name manually in the proper alphabetical order. Other projects do a much better job at telling people how to join them. Why don't you try to copy one? JustinTime55 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)