Talk:Star Trek/Archive 1

message: "forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! True... There was actually a Futurama episode like that, actually featuring the Star Trek crew, and  Kirk was making out and shirt ripped. --Menchi 10:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Where no fan has gone before", production series 4. Paul Weaver 20:33, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: This is something of a myth, since if you count it up (which I was once geeky enough to do), even stretching a few episodes a lo-o-ong way, only about 1/3 of the episodes end up with Kirk getting the girl.  But, of course, it's more fun to perpetuate the myth. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Maybe Kirk isn't particularly sex-stuffed when compared to real life people, but when I compare Kirk to Archer, Sisko, Janeway and Picard just from memory, Kirk seems to get the most. The rest get like...one romantic situation per season! Of course one can say Picard is too old and too wise to have any sex drive left...  --Menchi 04:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romances of the captains 

message: Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG?  I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q as enemy?

message: ... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he meant that all of the previous intros shared a style, which was thus universal amongst them.  --Baylink 03:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universal" style? 

message: I have noticed that at the bottom of the main page there are many sections all contcining links. I don't know about you but when editing this site I noticed the 32kb notice, so I thought it might be an idea to move the links to a new page and just position a small list of 'good' links on the main page.
:Personally, I don't see why this was done. The 32kb limit is not a maximum limit for articles, merely a point at which page rendering becomes difficult for old browsers - most of which are now depreciated. The break-out section created has no real encyclopedic value, and could easily be listed on VfD. I would propose re-merging the content back into this article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to new page 

message: Rumors of Enterprise's cancellation seem inappropriate - this is not a television forum, and the information is going to be outdated in a matter of weeks. Best to wait those two weeks and comment then, I think.Snowspinner 06:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the above comment was made nearly a year ago, at a time when rumors of cancellation following Enterprise's third season were rife. 23skidoo 20:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc thing that didn't fit anywhere and that I just shoved here to be deleted quickly 

message: Why are the pages for the various series under strange abbreviations and not under the right names: Star Trek VOY versus Star Trek Voyager. It would be easier to link to them under their right names.  ---rmhermen 
: I agree that Star Trek/Voyager would be better.
Also, what should be call the ships? I assume USS Enterprise-A (for example) not NCC-1701-A. Do we want U.S.S. or just USS?
: -- General Wesc
: I think we should give the full name and number once, like U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701-A), then call them in a brief version, like Enterprise-A. -- Magnus Manske
::  I meant in the entry title. -- General Wesc
Okay, I've decided, until somebody disagrees, that entries for ships will be /USS Shipname (or /USS Shipname-A or whatever.) One thing I've learned, it's best to have a standard before we've got twenty-thousand entries all pointing to different places for the same ship. -- General Wesc
: Agreed. --PSzalapski 20:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbrev. 

message: *A few notes:  one, why make this a subpage of Star Trek?  What other kind of Trekkies have you heard of?  two, it's not universally considered derogatory; in fact, some "trekkies" prefer to be called "trekkies," while other fans prefer "trekkers."
: Ok, here's the deal. In the beginning all Star Trek fans were Trekkies. Then about the time when Star Trek started having conventions dedicated to it a new class of fan emerged. Instead of just enjoying the show these fans wanted to participate. For instance, these fans are likely to own Star Trek uniforms that they wear to conventions, club meetings and in extreme cases to work. They more likely than not consider  Klingon a second language and own English to Klingon dictionaries. It is these super fans that decided Trekkie was demeaning and adopted the term trekker. The casual Star Trek fan doesn't mind being called a Trekkie.
A comment on this (Feel free to delete if inappropriate) --
*I had always believed that "Trekkie" refers to fans who are new to the universe of Star Trek, while "Trekker" refers to those who have been fans for many years. For example, I consider myself a "Trekker" because I have been a fan since about 1994, whereas I consider my nephew a "Trekkie" because he has only been a fan for a year or so.
**The distinction I always understood was that a Trekker might go to a Star Trek convention to see Leonard Nimoy and ask him what it was like playing such an interesting character, whereas a Trekkie would go along to meet Mr Spock and ask him to teach them how to mind-meld. (I was a babbler: I went to the Babylon 5 Wrap Party and actually met JMS and all I could do was babble :-) --Phil | Talk 07:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
***That matches my understanding.  --Locarno 15:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TREKKERS vs TREKKIES 

message: "forgotten what should be at the heart of the series and instead focus on action and scantily clad female aliens."
Ironcially The original series was all about scantilly clad women (that kirk always bedded in the end), and actions (which usually involved kirks shirt getting ripped) Paul Weaver 21:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! True... There was actually a Futurama episode like that, actually featuring the Star Trek crew, and  Kirk was making out and shirt ripped. --Menchi 10:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Where no fan has gone before", production series 4. Paul Weaver 20:33, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: This is something of a myth, since if you count it up (which I was once geeky enough to do), even stretching a few episodes a lo-o-ong way, only about 1/3 of the episodes end up with Kirk getting the girl.  But, of course, it's more fun to perpetuate the myth. -mhr 04:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Maybe Kirk isn't particularly sex-stuffed when compared to real life people, but when I compare Kirk to Archer, Sisko, Janeway and Picard just from memory, Kirk seems to get the most. The rest get like...one romantic situation per season! Of course one can say Picard is too old and too wise to have any sex drive left...  --Menchi 04:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romances of the captains 

message: Is Q really the "enemy" of TNG?  I see him as more of a Puck-like figure, sometimes with bad results, sometimes with positive results, but I never got the impression he was evil, but just rather inconsiderate and amoral.
MSTCrow 11:56, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph you're referring to, adding your excellent Puck allusion. He was usually treated as an enemy, but you're right that he went beyond this limited term in some novel ways. Hopefully I did him justice. -- Jeff Q 13:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Q as enemy?

message: ... a major departure from the more philosophical/intellectual and universal style of previous intros.
In the text quote above (from the Star Trek: Enterprise section), I don't understand what the author means by "universal" style. The Wiki link to the "Universal" disambiguation page doesn't provide any clue. I'm tempted to delete it and leave "philosophical/intellectual style". If there is some additional meaning "universal" contributes, it should probably be made clear. -- Jeff Q 13:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universal" style? 

message: A recent update changed the wording of Deep Space 9's description from a "Federation outpost" to a "Bajoran outpost under Federation control". Even though that sounds right to me (though I'm not absolutely sure), it raises an interesting question. Why would a Bajoran outpost adopt the name "Deep Space 9"? The "Deep Space" nomenclature comes from Starfleet; i.e., the Federation. (Witness the occasional mention of other Deep Space # stations throughout ST:TNG and the other series and movies.) Wouldn't the Bajorans change its old Cardassian name of Terok Nor (sp?) to a Bajoran one? The station certainly isn't in "deep space" relative to Bajor! -- Jeff Q 10:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The station was established as officially Bajoran early and often, and this fact was also used as a plot point several times.  Some Bajorans on the show were quite upset that the Federation was running their station--these characters saw it as a change from one evil regime to another not-quite-as-evil regime!  The name of Deep Space 9 certainly doesn't fit in with all the other Federation "Deep Space #" stations.  Perhaps one could rationalize that the Federation gave it a name when the Bajorans failed to do so?  The station was constructed by Cardassians, so it is likely that the Bajorans called it nothing but "Terok Nor" previously.   Thanks for the comment!  --PSzalapski 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS9 Bajoran or Fed outpost? 

message: In section Games, "subsection" Computer/video games, I would very much like to see the year of release and the producing company's name, for each game, instead of a list of producers on top. I have started doing this for a few games (listed the producers at least) but could do with some help. Also, in the future, we should perhaps list the games' platforms, so readers might get a picture of which computers/video game consoles have been 'supported by Star Trek' at various times. --Wernher 21:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek computer/video games producers 

message: I've added information regarding two new Trek Games being produced, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Tactical Assault.
   User:HIDDEN 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Trek Game

message: Will Star Trek end and be a forgotten memory that is completely buried in history?  - John-1107
:Talk pages now the forum for philosophical discussions? :) Cburnett 02:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forgotten memory?  No.  Not for years to come.  After all, several of the shows were engineered and designed to air for syndication. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think even if no new series or movies are produced, there will still be continuous re-runs, new novels and other merchandise. Avid fans will still attend conferences and new generations will discover Star Trek for themselves when they see the repeats, just like TOS has been repeated over the decades. I think Star Trek will stay with us for a long time yet! Marky1981 00:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, we know that a Trek XI is in the planning stages, but whether it actually goes anywhere has yet to be seen. The fact Rick Berman is involved will turn a lot of people off simply out of principle (so much for IDIC). My personal view on this subject is more along the lines of: when Star Trek comes back, will it be the same as the Star Trek we all grew up with? Like it or lump it, ENT was part of Roddenberry's universe, as was Voyager and the rest. With reboots and reimaginings under way in other franchises (Battlestar Galactica, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, pretty much every long-running comic book series, and most recently James Bond) I feel the temptation is very great for Paramount to do the same thing, and IMO a "regime change" will most certainly result in something that won't resemble what Roddenberry created. I can see the signs now: people want Star Trek to become a clone of BSG, of Firefly, of Farscape ... but by doing so, Trek will simply become, well, a clone of etc etc etc. In answer to the original question, there is simply too much Star Trek for it become forgotten. But I do feel that the final episode of Enterprise in May and *maybe* Trek XI will serve as epilogues to the franchise and the continuity that was created waaaay back in 1964 when The Cage was filmed. After that we may see Star Trek 2.0 and, hey, it might be good and it might be popular. But it won't be the same. 23skidoo 00:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I dunno. IM(NS)HO (as a long-time Trekker), there's enuf life in the "universe" to carry several series. How much, in 727 episodes (count "The Cage"), has been hinted at but never shown? For eg: Shran, Worf, Martok, lying Vulcans, Hirogen (& the rest of the Delta Quadrant)...N to ref whatever happened to Sisko (& "DS9" movies...). An "Academy" series, or a broader "Starfleet", could EZ be done, if N "Federation" (which could get really big...) When enuf people realize they're not getting their "ST" fix, something'll happen, just like with "STTMP".  Trekphiler 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if there are no more incarnations of Star Trek, it will certainally not be forgotten. Its social impact and its impact on the media is simply to significant to be forgotten. There may well be new Star Trek series yet to come, but Paramount may need to have fresh blood and ideas. One episode of Enterprise was an exact ripoff of a Voyager episode (one where the crew has to go through an expanse of space in suspended animation, where only one crew member is conscious during this time). Just because someone is out of ideas doesn't mean there are no more ideas.--RLent 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End or Legacy of Star Trek 

message: There's a question regarding Spock on Talk:Vulcan (Star Trek) for those who wish to contribute.--StAkAr Karnak 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Vulcan comment

message: I think the movies section should be broken down into short summaries just like what is done for the series.  Objections/thoughts? Cburnett 18:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they don't duplicate too much of what is in the separate film articles, I have no objection. BTW how long doe it take for the powers that be to make a decision regarding Featured Article status? That ominious "candidate for removal" notice has been up there for weeks. 23skidoo 18:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplication only to the extent that the series does.  A quick non-spoiler paragraph plot outline and the series cast that star in the movie (or something else) and possibly a screenshot.  If I were wanting to find out more about a specific movie ("I saw a movie that had whales in it but don't know which it is") then I wouldn't want to sift through all of them to find it. Cburnett 18:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I meant. And since the TV series blurbs pretty much have eliminated discussions re: popularity, controversy, etc. it's probably good to avoid same in the movie summaries (though of course these matters can be and are discussed elsewhere in the article). I tweaked the intro to reference the fact early planning for Trek XI is underway, and that European releases continued to number the films past STVI. 23skidoo 03:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie summaries 

message: *there was also a DS9 game for the Sega Genesis, I think the you played Odo or Sisko ... maybe someone will add that (131.130.121.106 16:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS9 console game 

message: I know there's a separate page for ST fan-made series and items, but New Voyages bears the distinction of endorsement from Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. and so deserves a mention on this page as well. ElKabong
: And then Takei endorses another fan series so someone decides it deserves mention here.  And Nichols endorses some other series so someone decides it deserves mention here.  And so on and so forth.  And next thing you know we have a great big long screed about fan productions.  Let's just keep the fan productions on Star Trek, other storylines.  AlistairMcMillan 14:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Voyages additions 

message: A featured article should:
# Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.  Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
# Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. Read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set. 
#* Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details.
#* Accurate: Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).
#* Stable: Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day.
#* Well-written: Compelling, even "brilliant" prose—the former name for featured articles.
# Be uncontroversial (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles) and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).
# Comply with the standards set in the style manual, as well as relevant WikiProjects. This includes having a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic, headings and have a substantial, but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
# Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status.  However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.
----
What I think we need to work on:
# Comprehensive: Further reading should include a list of articles that are majority important that have not been covered in the article.  An example to this is Trekkies.  Stuff like inconsistencies of Star Trek, arguments against Star Trek, etc... anything that will engage a reader's interest that is very much closely related to this article that hasn't been discussed in the article itself.  No reference to Desilu Productions???
# Accurate: May need a bit of fixing...
-- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going through the list for FA status 

message: First of all we are pushing Wikipedia to its limits with this many entries. This is hard work and it is imperative we have to work together.
* Episodes should each be seperate articles, preferably in a name space sceme such as Star Trek:Voyager:(whatever episode) or Star Trek:Voyager/(episode number) - (episode name)
* Serries should be seperate articles, so should movies. Star Trek should be an introduction to Star Trek universe and a disambiguation page to other pages. Star Trek is not something you can fit in a page.
* Many of the star trek articles do not follow a standard sceme, a unified and easy to folow sceme should be incorporated. There are two Defiants for example, I had taken the liberty to create a disambig page and seperate the two ships properly. 
* Ship names: Shipname (Ship number)
*:Ex: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
:::This is not the case all the time. 
 Cat chi? 04:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It think the name scheme suggested would be a bit difficult to execute given the dozens (if not hundreds) of articles that have already been created that would need to be renamed or moved. I think that's more trouble than it's worth. Better to simply add "... (ENT episode)" or "... (TNG episode)" or whatever to the relative few episode articles that have not yet been title-formatted that way. Having hundreds of articles all starting with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" would probably annoy the admins. I agree the episodes should be separate articles, and they should all follow a similar format. I've seen some indication of this already being done. 23skidoo 05:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: We should be linking to the most important links... not something like TOS TrekMUS.  Stuff like that should go under Trekkies.  The problem is that we need to attempt to separate the canon stuff from the fan fiction stuff.  I believe that we should attempt to focus on the official authorized stuff from Paramount.  I think what I'm a bit disappointed in is the history behind the franchise which should be covered, in a summary or in length in this article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if including the episode lists into the main article would be a good idea. With 700+ entries, it would make things a bit list heavy and I have learned that the "judges" for FA status do not like lists. The article James Bond was rejected for FA status and one of the reasons given was because it included a list of all the Bond books, despite this being considered vital information. Length is also an issue - if the article becomes too long it can be detrimental to it being selected. I personally wish the FA rules could be changed so that sets of articles could be nominated, rather than just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. In many respects, the Trek franchise is a huge jigsaw puzzle, and the main Star Trek article is simply the box. 23skidoo 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me rephrase that.  I meant that the links above which were a list on Star Trek Further Reading should be included into the article.  Not the pages which are lists themselves.  Something like: Star Trek: The Original Series made up a total of 80 episodes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad. That makes sense. 23skidoo 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: From the article:
:Due to its generally darker theme, many fans of the generally light Next Generation failed to return as an audience.
Um...I object to both the idea the NexGen was "light", to the suggestion that DS9's "generally darker theme" was a reason for NexGeners "not returning", and even to the idea that NexGeners didn't "return". I think that DS9 started to lose its "mass audience", but true NexGen fans would hardly have been "scared away" by DS9's themes. Anyone have thoughts here? func(talk) 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it could be said that DS9 had a rough start... as with any show... and that it really picked up in the latter seasons. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the light vs. dark was an issue when it came to why DS9 wasn't as popular as TNG. I know the anti-Berman backlash was starting around this time, while some people rejected DS9 because Roddenberry didn't create it. It was a darker show in terms of the fact all the characters weren't luvy duvy and some people didn't like that. I agree that the mass audience started to fade because, for one thing DS9 and TNG were on the air at the same time and there was some feeling of overkill (this was years before audiences became used to having multiple franchises such as L&O and CSI on the air). Interestingly, the headlines about "is Star Trek dead?" that erupted over the last year or so with ENT were basically carbon copies of similar doom-and-gloom headlines that were published during the first season of DS9. 23skidoo 19:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  In repsonse to Ally, there are other people who were fans of TNG, that preferred the earlier DS9 seasons (while Piller was the driving force on the writing team) and lost interest in the last year or two. AlistairMcMillan 19:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  Also, DS9 was more of a "serial", whereas the TNG episodes tended to stand a lone on their own. Tomservo3000 07:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "light Next Generation" 

message: I really don't think it is necessary to say that Star Trek "along with Star Wars" is one of the most popular SF franchises.  What about BSG?  Doctor Who?  Stargate?  If we want to name-drop, there's no way to do justice to each fanbase.  I think it is enough to say that Star Trek is one of the most popular SF franschises, and link SF franchises to a list of franchises elsewhere.--StAkAr Karnak 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars 

message: I have modified the table of films as I thought it was too long. I have made use of the horizontal space so that all ten films can be seen on one screen. I know it's not perfect, hopefully someone can tidy it up a bit to make it a bit nicer! Marky1981 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of films 

message: Hello all.  I just noticed an anon user has been going around adding to every single Star Trek character page the term "at final apperance" or "at death" after each rank.  To me, this is pointless.  There is also a measure of original research, espically with listing ranks of Star Trek Enterprise characters that were only discussed as happening in th future but never actually seen.  See this link for what I'm talking about.  This will need major reversions to fix.  Any suggestions? -Husnock 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and revert them. I agree it's pointless. 23skidoo 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK i was making these changes i just didnt log in! but do you understand what im trying to do?  'current rank' is wrong and this is anything but pointless please dont revert.--Noahmj 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it wrong? We're talking about fictional characters, none of whom are scheduled to be even born for another 150 years or so. It's no different than changing the wording to read "Will be a captain" or what-have-you. Please explain the point of adding "at death", etc. I don't have a big problem with it on the articles for characters whose deaths have been shown on screen (Kirk, Yar, Tucker) but even though it can be assumed Malcolm Reed (for example) is dead by the time of TOS and later I fail to see the point. Cheers. 23skidoo 14:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all of the "at final apperance"/"at death"/"last time we saw them"/etc from the character pages.  The anon ip address who posted this is now involoved in vandalism at the Tom DeLay so this looks like a one time thing by an inexperianed editor.  Hopefully the issue will not return. -Husnock 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big problem with character's rank 

message: Hello to you all!  Many of the ST articles I've perused (and edited thusly) recently contain both forms — i.e., Star Trek or Star Trek, italicised or not — to describe the 'ST universe'.  As such, I believe this underlines a slightly significant issue – of (in)consistency or of (not) having a standard – regarding various Star Trek references on Wikipedia pages in general.  As well, various Star Trek reference works (of varying canonicity) use Star Trek (italics) when referring to the universe or generally; this, however, is likely corporate self-promotion by Paramount.
We needn't do this in Wikipedia, though, given the audience of Wikipedia (web visitors and users) and inherent popularity of the term and franchise.  As well, systemic italics may confuse users regarding the precise topic matter: for example, if Star Trek is used in a general capacity but is inferred to mean the original Star Trek series (in actuality, Star Trek was the proper name of the original series, et al.), etc.
So: consistent with similar posts (and similar discussions, e.g., here), I propose usage of Star Trek (plain) in Wikipedia for general references to the universe, franchise, or phenomenon, and the use of Star Trek /: The Original Series (italics) only when referring to the original series (and similarly, where it appears in a name of a movie, production, etc.).  If this is acceptable, I encourage users to make such editions on related pages when they come across them.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much ado about nothing, my good man. Let's reserve the italics (Star Trek) for specific movies or TV shows. Plain roman (Star Trek) is good enough for the phenomonon, the universe, etc. Uncle Ed 18:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''Star Trek''''' or '''Star Trek''' ? 

message: Which Earth Navy(ies), were the TOS rank insignias (wrist stripes) based on? Mightberight/wrong 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon -- for some reason the edit was indicated as being from an anonymous IP address so I had no way of knowing it was you. (I've found myself logged out by accident a few times, too, which results in me doing edits under my IP number instead of my username). 23skidoo 23:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there; the ranks and bands are roughtly based on those of the US Navy.  Here's a great article that discusses the various ranks/insignia in Starfleet.  I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TOS OFFICER RANK INSIGNIAS

message: ===TV shows===
Years    	Series Name                   	Abbrev.   	Episodes	Notes
1966-1969	Star Trek                     	TOS       	79      	excluding unaired pilot
1973-1974	Star Trek                     	TAS or TAA	22      	animated
1978     	Star Trek: Phase II           	          	0       	not produced
1987-1994	Star Trek: The Next Generation	TNG       	178     	
1993-1999	Star Trek: Deep Space Nine    	DS9       	176     	
1995-2001	Star Trek: Voyager            	VOY or VGR	172     	
2001-2005	Star Trek: Enterprise         	ENT       	98      	
         	                              	          	725     	TOTAL
Why doesn't this table count "The Cage"?  It is most definitely a Star Trek episode, and I don't see how anyone could question its canonicity.  This brings the count to 726.--StAkAr Karnak 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: Years    	Series Name                   	Abbrev.   	Episodes	Notes
1966-1969	Star Trek                     	TOS       	79      	excluding unaired pilot
1973-1974	Star Trek                     	TAS or TAA	22      	animated
1978     	Star Trek: Phase II           	          	0       	not produced
1987-1994	Star Trek: The Next Generation	TNG       	178     	
1993-1999	Star Trek: Deep Space Nine    	DS9       	176     	
1995-2001	Star Trek: Voyager            	VOY or VGR	172     	
2001-2005	Star Trek: Enterprise         	ENT       	98      	
         	                              	          	725     	TOTAL
Why doesn't this table count "The Cage"?  It is most definitely a Star Trek episode, and I don't see how anyone could question its canonicity.  This brings the count to 726.--StAkAr Karnak 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TV shows

message: The following text was originally posted in the Continuation of Enterprise subsection, but I suspect the user intended it for the Talk page. 23skidoo 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Continuation of Enterprise

message: It says "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise. It has a tentative release date of 2007, and it's been rumoured that Nicholas Meyer(Director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) will be helming this new venture." but this is incorrect. He didn't direct The Voyage Home that was Leonard Nimoy. But, I cant seem to find the edit section to remove it. Its not under the sub-heading edit for "motion pictures" nor is that text contained in the main page.
: Please sign your comments. You must be working from a cached version of the page as all this speculation was already removed by another editor a day or so ago. 23skidoo 15:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not speculation: "As of August 2005, the first draft of the script for the 11th film has been completed. The working title is Star Trek: The Beginning [1], featuring brand-new characters and taking place shortly after Enterprise."  I placed this information on the page after such was reported by TrakNation some months ago (As revealed by the "1" source link).  I don't know why the rest was added by someone else.--StAkAr Karnak 21:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to put it back. I was referring to the Meyers stuff, though the lack of any official announcement by Paramount still places Trek 11 into "Crystal Ball" territory which is why it does not qualify for its own article yet. 23skidoo 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion Pictures... 

message: A user has been changing the spelling of Jackson Roykirk (a character from the TOS episode The Changeling to "Jackson Roy Kirk". I've never encountered this spelling in all my years as a Trek fan, not to mention it makes no sense since it would suggest the guy was a relative of JT Kirk, which he clearly isn't. I thought I'd put the comment on the general Trek page so that someone can take a look at this. 23skidoo 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved, so my two TOS books are packed away somewhere, but when I dig them out I will see if there is a reference there. At this point I can't provide proof. However, in The Changeling (Star Trek), when Mr. Spock shows the slide of Nomad's creator he clearly says, "Jackson...Roy...Kirk. Brilliant, but erratic..." I have a theory: James Blish, who was not the most careful writer when it comes to Trekker-level details, just assumed it was the name "Roykirk" -- and Memory Alpha has adopted that, spreading that version of the name. Which makes more sense: that Nomad -- thinking of "The Kirk" -- confused "James T." with "Jackson Roy" or "James Kirk" with "Jackson Roykirk"? Also, this is not proof, but it shows that there is disagreement about the spelling: Google search for Roykirk produces 538 results, and for Roy Kirk it's 208. BCorr|Брайен 13:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't actually use Blish as the ultimate source since he often used early versions of scripts, anyway. But the fact none of other reference works, official and otherwise, published over the years have ever used this spelling would suggest that Roykirk is official. The Spock quote means little since it could also be just the way Nimoy said the line. I haven't seen The Changeling in awhile but my memory is Nomad uses "The Kirk" the same way Ilia used "Kirk Unit" in TMP (which of course was a remake of Changeling). If McCoy had been captain, Nomad might have referred to him as "The McCoy", etc. I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced unless someone produces a copy of the script for The Changeling or some sort of other printed proof that the man's last name was Kirk, not Roykirk. 23skidoo 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "unless someone produces a copy of the script" -- well I guess that's pretty unlikely, isn't it? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not as unlikely as you may think. Remember this is Trek fandom we're talking about. Not long ago a CD-ROM was issued with all the scripts for DS9 and TNG; somewhere copies of the script of The Changeling are circulating. However my statement is in part an indication of my confidence that the shooting script will reveal the spelling to be "Roykirk" since my understanding is the scripts were among the resources used by the writers of the Encyclopedia and Chronology. I just dug out my copy of "The Star Trek Compendium" by Allan Asherman and he uses "Roykirk" as well. I think there is overwhelming evidence against the "Roy Kirk" spelling. 23skidoo 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, technically as a print/Internet source it doesn't really count per the general rule of Trek canon ... but it's as good a source as as any for this! ;-) 23skidoo 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackson Roykirk vs. Jackson Roy Kirk

message: There really is a planet named "Alderaan" in the Star Trek line of fictional work, which happens to be the name of the sharded planet on Star Wars. Now why did they put that there, and why would Lucasfilm permit this? Look up Alderaan on [Alpha] (the Star Trek wiki) --Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing this was allowed becuase Alderaan is an actual name of a location on earth. And obviously the planet is not the same exact one in both Star Wars and Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 08:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alderaan"

message: Seeing that Harry Kim is Korean in descent, that had me start thinking about what happened to the Koreas between now and then. Do North and South Korea reunify under the Communist or Capitalist government? Do they stay divided to the day a single world government takes place? As I'm also half-Korean, it makes me all the more curious. Reply to my User Talk page if you wish. --Shultz 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Koreas in Star Trek

message: How the hell can such good series as Voyager and Enterprise get low rating? are all the trek fans old ppl who dont like computer special effects or what? i think u should shame. All of u who claim to like star trek and then give it low rating, a true trek liker never gives low rating. Star trek deserves the best and nothing else.
You know I agree I don't understand why Enterprise is claimed to have done poorly in the ratings and some have said that Voyager had slumping ratings towards the end.  Although it is possible that these individuals are only quoting network and studio execs.  I believe something else was afoot.  Paramount did all they could to sabotage Enterprise.
At beginning Enterprise got off to the usual slow start like TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY but as the series went along improved.  Voy did extreming well towards the end.--Tjkphilosofe 10:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that with arc storytelling now in vogue (see 24, Alias, etc), one would expect people to have been used to dealing with jumping onto an arc. Problem is Trek never really did it before (the Dominion arc on DS9 was loose enough that one could jump on anywhere). The main failing of the Xindi arc was the lack of a "jumping on" episode at the midway point, which Alias tends to do from time to time. Another problem with ENT was it came on the heels of 600+ episodes of the franchise -- of course every conceivable plot could be compared to a previous episode because as my Shakespeare professor once said, there really are only about a half-dozen possible plots in literature anyway. I agree with you on the Nielsen ratings being controversial, especially with regards to ENT because there never was a true accounting of how many people watched it, since the weekend rerun was never counted in the overall ratings -- and that was the one people tended to see due to the preemptions and the fact ENT was up against shows that attracted a similar audience like Stargate and Smallville. Plus, there were many people who TIVO'd, taped, or outright downloaded the episodes, and Nielsen is still predicated on the assumption people sit down and watch a show as it airs; it hasn't been updated to include time-shifting and alternate viewing options; during ENT's 4 years I think I only watched it at its actual broadcast time about 30% of its run. Does this mean ENT had substantially higher viewer ship than  UPN believed? I am convinced of it. Would it have been higher to the point where the show might have received better treatment by the network (and for that matter, the fanbase)? That's impossible to say. There are plenty of signs that Paramount/Viacom/CBS had grown tired of Trek and that no matter what might have happened it might have been considered time to rest the franchise (Scott Bakula claims UPN decided to cancel the show after the 4th season as early as year 2). There's precedent for this with CBS: they cancelled The Ed Sullivan Show at the top of its game because it had been on the air for 25 years and was considered stale. They also cancelled Gunsmoke for the same reason. 23skidoo 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Low rating?

message: In the Motion Pictures section there's a bit of discussion about the "odd film rule" and someone wrote that Trek 7 (Generations) is an exception as it's a "firm fan favorite". I'm not sure if that's correct. My understanding is that the film has never been regarded very highly - in part because of Kirk's fate. While it doesn't seem to be hated as much as Nemesis, I don't agree that it can be called a "firm fan favorite". But before I delete that sentence I wanted to gauge thoughts on this. Maybe I'm wrong? 23skidoo 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall Generations ever being a fan favorite. Delete for sure. The only exception to the rule that I'm aware of is Nemesis. K1Bond007 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Generations - fan favorite?

message: As a Trek fan, there's one thing that's always caused my eyebrow to rise (like Spock's). By Star Trek VI, the Enterprise-A had, 3 Captains & 3 Commanders, Starfleet could have instantly lost 6 fine officers in one catastrophy. Should this be mentioned in the article? What do you think, fellow Trek fans. GoodDay 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like original research to me. I'd say no. K1Bond007 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloated Bridge?

message: This page is already way too long, but has anyone mentioned the even numbers theory or the number 47 theory? If so feel free to delete this entry. Basically the even numbers theory suggests that even numbered Star Trek films are good 2, 4, 6, 8 being the best examples while odd numbered ones are bad 1,3,5,7,9 all not being up to snuff...The number 47, according to the 47 Society web page (which I hasten to add is a spoof), is apparently used whenever possible in NG, Voyager and DS9 as a kind of in joke about the power of an apparently random number. Again feel free to delete if this has already come up...AGM
Didn't Data use the 47 theory thingy to make his blinking realistic? SaintDante 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Is there an article on Paramount's Star Trek canon policy? If not, I'll create one. The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hard to nail down; a brief introduction is in the Canon (fiction) article, with much more detail (where I've made recent editions) in a dedicated, existing article.  I hope this is helpful.  E Pluribus Anthony 09:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was mainly because I know that the Voyager novels Mosaic and Pathways are considered canon, was wondering if a specific Star Trek canon article addresses this. The Wookieepedian 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah; no problem – the article summarises this.  As well, head on over to the link in that article to Ex Astra Scientia; they have a different spin about the canonicity of such novels.  As well, feel free to suggest or make edits to the Wp article.  Live long and prosper. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek canon 

message: Shouldn't this article have a section covering the great cultural impact the series has had? I would have thought that, it being a former featured article, would have already had that well covered. I know there are several spin-off articles on Wikipedia that cover the cultural impact of Star Trek, but shouldn't this main one have a section devoted to it? The Wookieepedian 07:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur: there should be a brief section regarding culture in the article (particularly addressing gross economic, personal, and legacy implications of the franchise, and perhaps comparisons with Star Wars), with appropriate elaboration in subarticles. E Pluribus Anthony 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I mean, all this article does is cover the content. That's great, but it ignores the effect it all has had on eople. The Wookieepedian 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly, done and done!  TY for your patience! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural impact 

message: After looking over both the sections on the TV series, and on the films, I found what I consider to be yet another major fault in this article: it lacks explanation of plot. IMHO, each section devoted to a TV series, for example, should give a brief synopsis of the show (what happens in it, who the major players are, etc). Everything else included is OK, but it looks to me as if these sections, at times, are merely collections of trivia about the shows or films, and not organized or written in a specific format. And all the section on the films seems to do, is basically explain how fans perceive the films, rather than explaining what the films are about over all, and giving general and fan reactions.  
Now, E Pluribus Anthony and I have properly expanded the section on Canonicity and other stories. That's taken care of. Yet there is still not a section explaining the cultural impact and general reception the Star Trek franchise has had. Someone needs to work on that. I am still surprised, in a way, that this was featured when it was. In my opinion, it still needs a lot of work. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey; I agree.  I'll craft something re. cultural impact and plot in the next few days.  Qapla'!  E Pluribus Anthony 10:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. The Wookieepedian 16:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When are you going to write this? The Wookieepedian 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it ... I should have it ready tomorrow, if you're OK with that? E Pluribus Anthony 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another issue I have... 

message: ":Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category.  There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category.  Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time travel television series

message: "Where no man..." & "to explore...seek out" & were coined by John DF (Associate Producer & Story Ed); "Space, the final frontier..." by Sam Peeples (title of the 2d pilot, for the non-Trekkers, which was DxJames Goldstone). "STTOS" won 2 Emmys. Shocked? They were for Production Design... The show, surprisingly, never got above #52 in the ratings; by Season 3, they were down by over half. It was the first 1hr color SF series in primetime for adults. It wrapped (with an episode broadcast 3 June 1969, to an 8.8 rating) on 9 Jan 1969, 1 day & US$6000 over... If only I could source it...  Trekphiler 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trekinalia

message: See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles.  I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread.  Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added my vote against it. The Wookieepedian 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia? 

message: What's with the Western science fiction category? Looks like someone put most if not all of the Star Treks in this category, but except for a couple of episodes (Spectre of the Gun, ENT's North Star) there really hasn't been much western-style SF in Trek. Yes I know it's inspired by Wagon Train, but Star Wars was inspired by Seven Samurai and you don't see it listed in the Japanese science fiction category. Unless someone can give a good rationale for keeping the Trek titles in the category, I may just go ahead and delete it. 23skidoo 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect "western" a la "western hemisphere"/"western culture" -- not so much the wild (well, ancient) west.  I make this suggestion, of course, without actually looking to see if any other non-Trek entries have also been added to the category. EEMeltonIV 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Western science-fiction is a genre of science fiction that transposes themes of American western books and film to a backdrop of futuristic space frontiers. It doesn't have anything to do with wearing cowboy hats and roping steers. It supposes that the future of space exploration will be much like the taming of the old west in the United States of America. This "frontier stories" view of the future is only one of many ways to look at space exploration, and not one that is held in high regard by many scientists and futurologists. Authors like Raymond Kurzweil, for instance, assert that humans will evolve past the need for rocket ships in the near future. --Peace Inside 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good rationale, however if that's the case the category needs some serious vetting as it does have cowboy-style stories listed, such as Adventures of Brisco County Jr.. When I saw that was when I started questioning its validity in this context. (Nothing against Brisco County but it doesn't fit Peace Inside's description). 23skidoo 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brisco County Jr. had a science fiction backdrop to some extent. It certainly had western themes. American western frontier themes + Science fiction backdrop = Western Science Fiction. --Peace Inside 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western science fiction?

message: I'm not a Trekkie and therefore didn't know in what year the original series was set.  I don't believe this information is anywhere within the article.  23rd century?  24th?  SyntaxPC 14:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I think it works out as 2267-69 if memory serves... - JVG 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In what year is it set?

message: Not that it's terribly important, but I've noticed that a great deal of Star Trek screenshots on Wikipedia are tagged  rather than .  How should we rectify this?  Should we rectify this?  Also, should this conversation be taking place elsewhere?  I like things nice and clean, ha. - Dwiki 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A preponderance of <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:film-screenshot|film-screenshot]]}}

message: Gator1 'removed as not "related to the production and influence of the franchise."'
from the "References" section, the following:-
* On the Good Ship Enterprise: My 15 Years with Star Trek by Bjo Trimble (Donning Starblaze, 1983)   
* Star Trek Memories by William Shatner and Chris Kreski (HarperCollins, 1993) 
* The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad Ph.D. with Ed Robertson (HarperCollins, 2000)   
* I'm Working on That: A Trek from Science Fiction to Science Fact by William Shatner and Chip Walter (Pocket Books, 2002) 
Any discussion about this??!!  ~~JohnI~~
:They're not cited anywhere in the article (none of them are) so I can't tell if they're even being used. The entire reference section needs to be updated to resolve this issue. K1Bond007 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed without discussion?! 

message: Just curious about claims that there were three years of development. Any show can go through tremendous periods of time in creation and network pitching ... but the series itself, in true pre-production, was actually a matter of months. So, is it possible to clarify this statement or remove it altogether? Syfymichael 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to "The Making of Star Trek" by Steve Whitfield and Roddenberry, Roddenberry began planning Star Trek in 1960 - so actually it should read six years and I will make that change immediately. Also, remember the first pilot was produced in 1964 and the second pilot in 1965, so even if you only count actual physical production ... then Star Trek was still at least 2 years old when The Man Trap aired. 23skidoo 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three years of development? 

message: "... which, in turn, increased ratings and allowed the series to continue for four more seasons."
I am a television industry research professional with access to ratings information. I deleted this line because it was incorrect factually. 
Each successive season of Star Trek Voyager received lower ratings, on average, than each previous season. It is possible that the ratings loss might have been more severe had they not made the switch, but such speculation and does not belong in this entry.
: Can you provide an online or other source to back this up? Otherwise it's in itself speculative and POV to delete the line. I'm restoring it for now. My suggestion is to provide a verifiable source that the addition of 7 of Nine did not increase ratings, acknowledge that there were reports that it did (Entertainment Weekly comes immediately to mind as they ran a story on it, if memory serves), and then provide a link and/or reference. 23skidoo 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eitehr way, it needs to be properly cited so I inserted a  after the sentence.Gator (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguments there. I thought about this when I put the text back but I didn't think about adding the tag. 23skidoo 18:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOY ratings did NOT increase with the addition of "Seven of Nine" 

message: If you check out www.imdb.com or any other site that tracks these things, you will discover that Star Trek:TNG exceeds the number of nominations and awards earned by Deep Space Nine -both for technical and non-technical, nominations and wins, individual episodes abd full series, and genre and non-genre awards. DS9 did not exceed TNG's critical acclaim - not even close. --Nephandus 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DS9 NOT the most critically acclaimed.

message: Is Star Trek permitted in the muslim world? I just wrote this question in detail in the Ferengi section, but realized that section might be very seldom read, so I am re-stating the question here.
I recall that Ferengi had a strict dress code for women. Otherwise one might be tempted to take them off! What sexual depravity! . Other abrahamic religions promise the loving presence of God, but Islam promises worldly success like money and women, both in this life and the next. Muslims tend to regard Merchants as being the only decent job, which is why so many of them are merchants, partly because Mohammed himself is considered an ideal, and was first a merchant, but also, when necessary, a soldier. Traditionally they have had one single religious leader who took the role after Mohammed, I think it was the Caliph, but that part is not currently in use, although there are plenty of prominent people trying to take up that role. Ferengi also have, if I recall rightly, one religious leader. I could list a number of other possible similarities, so I went to this article and saw that Ferengi is an arab word for merchant. DanielDemaret 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My only question remains unanswered: Is StarTrek permitted in muslim countries? DanielDemaret 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferengi 

message: There is no need to have a link to homosexual behaviour.  There was no homosexual behaviour in the series and there was not any characters.  There is no need to bring an agenda to something that did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.22.231 (talk • contribs) 21:59 17 March 2006 (UTC)
*Did you miss the instances of women kissing women on DS9?  I'd say its a relevant topic of discussion. --Etacar11 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual links. 

message: I was wondering if i could get a list on what the color of the shirts represent. like blue is worn by blah and rank blah and you get the idea. I would also like to compare different seasons and shows of this. I would be very grateful. SaintDante 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. The info you want is here. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: In the first info box, it mentions Vulcans as a major planetary nation. It is not, it's part of the United Federation of Planets and should not be mentioned as a major planetary nation.
--Feelgood 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Planetary Nations 

message: Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment