# Talk:Star Trek

change the ownership part from Paramount global to Paramount pictures 2601:48:4301:99B0:BC0D:C8E8:75D8:95D6 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done, though a reminder that we'd rather be correct than just 'right'; this is going to change as current target is under active discussion for a rename. Nathannah • 📮 22:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Both series should be added to the list of star trek series. PeaheadTNT (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about Very short Treks, it's not canon. About Star Trek Scouts don't know, for now they are in Star Trek#YouTube series, @PeaheadTNT. IKhitron (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Definitely not very short treks, which was just promotional shorts and not a proper series. Scouts is another story. It might be too soon to say, but it feels like it should be included. What is the criteria? Rcarter555 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
A canon series, maybe. I don't know for sure, but I think the Scouts will be one day on Nikelodeon. IKhitron (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I can't imagine that "canon" would be a criteria for inclusion (considering many can't agree on which shows are canon). Rcarter555 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
very Short Treks were just short, non-canon promotional videos. That is why we decided not to include them on the main list, unlike Short Treks. I haven't looked much into it yet but I think Scouts will come down to whether we think it is a TV series vs. a "web series", which is a term we used to use for online-only short form content like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
For me it would depend if it was an official production. Every series can later become canon or be excluded for several reasons.
So very short treks maybe not canon, but should be included in some way. PeaheadTNT (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
both are not mentioned on the official website, but there is also the section 31 Movie missing PeaheadTNT (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
If Star Trek: Scouts is a web series than is Star Trek: Short Treks also a web series. A web series is manly defined as a series with short length episodes, that is published in the Internet. Short Treks is a series like that. If that the line, than it should be also under web series. To exclude a series, only bc it is on YouTube and not on an other platform, is not a decision based on definitions. It is a decision based on feelings.
A streaming service, at least the current definition on wikipedia, includes every video plattform, also YouTube. Streaming service
From the feeling side, I can understand not to list Very short treks. But it is the only promptional series officially under the franchise name. It was also ordert by paramount. If it says a series of promotional sorts, it is for me just a long discription of a series. There is no part that exclud Very short treks from a defintion of a series: a set or sequence of related programs. PeaheadTNT (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
can I suggest a reorganisation. To change the titel tv series to just series. Than put in the list diffrent categories like: >television and streaming<, >parody and promotional< and >web series<. I personally would prefer this over the current order. PeaheadTNT (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
In the age of streaming, what exactly constitutes a "web series" as opposed to "streaming series"  It feels like it could get very difficult to agree on a category for some things.  I wouldn't recommend this reorganization. Rcarter555 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
At the moment it is this organisation just under youtube series on a diffrent part of the page. It is really hard to get an overview this way. At the moment Youtube series would be also fine for me. I think it would be helpful to have all series at one part of the page.
It was just a way to maybe find a compromise. PeaheadTNT (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Also are streaming series television series? I wouldn't put them in the same category, bc they work differently PeaheadTNT (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I looked in the official announcement of the Star Trek Scouts Series. It is named as a Youtube First Series. But for me it is a strange boarder that streaming Series are counted as televison but a YouTube Series is excluded. I can't see an logical argument for that.
Also that Very Short Trek is excluded is also not quite logical. It is not canon and a parodie, but it is a parodie publicised under the Star Trek umbrella and therefore should be included. PeaheadTNT (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
It’s not really a proper series, though. It’s just promotional shorts. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
It still a row of programs that are related to each other. I dont see how the length or the kind of could disqualifie it as a series. PeaheadTNT (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
There have, in the past, been a series of commercials featuring Star Trek actors in character. Would you ask to include those as well? Rcarter555 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Did thies commercials run under the lable Star Trek and where ordered or produced by the owner of the franchise? PeaheadTNT (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the obvious answer is no. Very short treks is an exception like star wars visions. It is under the franchise name and should be treated like that. It isn't a usual comcercial PeaheadTNT (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
In this case, would you add to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#ABC series the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot? And it's a canon. IKhitron (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
From what I can read on Wikipedia definitely yes PeaheadTNT (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Not taking a side here but have to say I need a Ceti eel to eat the part of my brain which holds the memory of ST Scouts. :-) SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Why? It's a good show for 4 years old. And if you are older, you are not supposed to watch it all. Because the Romulan rubber ducky's face is cute, but only for the little kids. IKhitron (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I was joking. Lighten up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

While in dark mode at the WP interface, the figure is barely visible. I suggest for the figure to be replace with one that appears distinctive enough between different WP modes, light and dark ones. A.Cython (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done, that was a fan made logo, changed back to previous image. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks.A.Cython (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

it seems like Paramount is going to reboot the film series again. https://variety.com/2025/film/news/new-star-trek-movie-dungeons-and-dragons-jonathan-goldstein-john-francis-daley-1236582221
while I completely agree that we should wait until something is actually going to be announced, calling the time period between enterprise and the streaming era the reboot timeline seems less and less useful and more and more of a misnomer. which reboot? Oldag07 (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That article doesn’t say anything about it being a reboot; it just says it won’t be connected to previous Star Trek stories. AJD (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"Reboot (Kelvin timeline) film series (2009–2016)" for the title of a section, and "Reboot (Kelvin Timeline)" for the film section.  Probably not appropriate to change now, but if a second reboot does happen, the 2009-2016 section should be "Kelvin Timeline". ~2025-34687-02 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think the movie is a reboot, and not a story about, let's say, 26th or 27th century in original or Kelvin universes? IKhitron (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. There is very little info about this right now. We should learn more the new films before making any changes to several articles. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)