Talk:Star Trek fan productions/Archive 2

message: I've slotted Star Track into "Produced Fan Films" - with 16 produced episodes they are an established series - in alphabetical order. This would seem to me to be the most equitable format unless we are grading them in some way? The only other fair system might be by age - first come first served?--Kirok of L'Stok 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Track 

message: I didn't realise that Wikipedia was mirrored as an authority on subjects in second party websites. Help.com has this page mirrored on their website, as does eBay. Ah! Fame if not fortune!--Kirok of L'Stok 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority 

message: This group, which opened their new website in October last year, released their first teaser on May 3rd. A Next Generation fan film, the first part of their pilot episode scenario, 'War cast long shadows' was only approved in February, just before their second test shoot, opening up the way for them to prepare a storyboard. Available now from the download section of their website or from Google Video it shows considerable expertise with their "greenscreen" technique which is excellent. 
As with many fan film sites, they have put a considerable amount of work into their bilingual (English and Polish) website. They also have an English section in their forum, however the registration process was only possible with the use of a Polish-English translation engine. Dobre Szczęście!
Within the context of this article and the accepted protocols they are not at a pre-production stage, along with Lexington, they are close but not quite there!--Kirok of L'Stok 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek: Horizons 

message: I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort of concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films. On further investigation I have found some strange things going on that I would like a Wikipedia admin or at least someone versed in the ways of Wikipedia to check out. If I am correct, it casts grave doubts about the action that is being taken. Since this matter concerns so many articles I am posting it on my talk page.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that there is not conversation desired on this topic. Despite the earlier claim, I don't see this as canvassing. I also wonder whether outside conversation from third parties would be helpful and welcome -- by EITHER side of the dispute. --Mhking 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt you're in any immediate danger of banning, since as far as I can see you're not guilty of the offfense he's accusing you of.  His warning is completely unwarranted in my opinion, and should be reviewed by someone higher up. I'd suggest calling in the Mediation Cabal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Nick Cook 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just Trek films now, either. This Milkandwookiees is going after any fanfilm now. Seems we have a case of WP:POINT going on here. TheRealFennShysa 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion 

message: Trek fan film efforts are discussed in a new article in The New York Times: "'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video" 
This would be an appropriate article source to use for citation (as there is none in the article currently), in light of the recent concerns over notability/significance.--LeflymanTalk 05:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou, Leflyman, you beat me to it! I've changed your title so that if anyone comes across any other examples of notability they can add them here so that we will have a centralised log. I would like to add that the New York Times article was mirrored (quite badly I might add) by the UK's Independant newspaper (online edition) 19 June 2006--Kirok of L'Stok 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just watched "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC and their final (number one countdown story according to them) was about the Star Trek fan films out there and Hidden Frontier, New Voyages and Farragut were all mentioned in the brief story. PirateGent 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now Official Trek is getting into the act.  There's an article on StarTrek.com about the fan productions. StarTrek.com Article. JusticeCEO 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Trek Fan Film Notability 

message: I'd like agreement on this before it is posted. Given that ST: Of Gods And Men is filming at the moment, I think it is fair to say that they are in production, right? The amount of mainstream media interest generated by it alone makes it noteworthy. I think that before it has finished it will end up breaking new ground in many different directions.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Gods And Men 

message: I put the following notation in the page next to the "New Voyages" project section. 
*Related article NPR - Star Trek Fan Films Live Long and Prosper (mp3
I know it's well worth noting in the page... and it should probably be cited as most wikipedia pages do at the end of the article, but I wasn't about to make a whole new section for it.  Please feel free to note it more acceptably. Thank you btw, to all contributors, if it weren't for this great resource I don't think there's any place else that gives a decent overview of what's going on in this space.  --mmeiser 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we put external articles? 

message: Should we make a section for fan games? Not only are they significant, especially in the mod community, but star trek fan games are among some of the first computer games ever made (eg, the star trek script game and 'super star trek'). Not only that, but a few games such as ega trek and originally, the starfleet universe, have received special dispensation from paramount to continue using certain proper nouns (eg, vulcan = ok, spock != ok).69.231.243.136 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on your definition of a fan production. When I originally started this article I had the idea of also including ...
##VR (Virtual Reality) animations with subcategories for ...
###Stop motion 
###Sim movies
###Flash
###Machinima
###CGI Animation
##Web Comics
##Computer Games with subcategories for ...
###Half-Life
###Star Trek: Elite Force
###Unreal Tournament 2004
###Freeware (ie others)
##Skills and crafts with subcategories for ...
###Card modelling
To my mind, a fan production is anything produced by fans but you could use the definition that it could be a theatrical production created by fans. To be fair although animations fit that definition, I don't think games and crafts really fit here now. There is a subcategory for games in ST: Spinoff fiction (which significantly overlaps this article, I might add) but I don't think it fits there either really. I think you should consider a seperate article - maybe split off the games section from the ST: spin-offs article?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Games 

message: In regards to the section titled Mystery Science Theater 3000 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier where it says  "Ryan K. Johnson's take on a film the original Mystery Science Theater 3000 never tackled,"  this may need to be re-written. It is true that MST3K never tackled it during its original run due to legalities, but more recently RiffTrax has tackled it. Mike Nelson, with the assistance of Kevin Murphy (aka Tom Servo) have deliciously lampooned it. Although this is not a fan film, because only the audio is available, so how one can worm this into the article is beyond me. However, although Ryan beat Mike to the punch, it has since been tackled, and expertly, by at least a portion of the original MST3K talent pool. -- ZachsMind 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MST3K never did tackle Star Trek V". Rifftrax is not MST3K. Hence, the original phrasing is correct and completely accurate. And seeing as how the original phrasing predates the creation of Rifftrax, the "worming its way in" phrase is a bit strong, don't you think? TheRealFennShysa 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MST3K AND ST-V 

message: A new fan film in production. I'm not sure how to edit it into the article so I put it here for anyone who can
http://www.startrekorigins.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still in pre-production - cast, scripts for 4 vignettes & a premiere ep, video equipment bought and just waiting for costumes before they start filming. Once they have that first vignette in the can they will be in post-production and eligable for inclusion in that bracket. Getting the front page of Fan Films Quarterly as well doesn't hurt their notability ... OMG, I can't believe I just said that!--Kirok of L'Stok 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Origins 

message: Bryan, we have been through all this before and your credibility in pretty much zero since you have never given one supporting reference for all the changes you have made. I still believe that you are simply a misguided fan but the situation has taken an all to serious nature. You have been told by the executive producer of ST: The Section 31 Files that if you continue with your campaign of misinformation against S31 he will discontinue the audio drama and it will be YOUR fault. If you continue with this consistent editing of the S31 piece in this article to make it sound like it has finished when you have no proof that this is so then it is entirely possible that you will push Eric over the edge and cause the demise of the very thing that you purport to be a fan of.
Whether the threat is fair dinkum or not, what you are doing is vandalism and we will go through the same process as before, however because of your record, i will show less leeway than i did. For every edit that you make that is not supported by a verifiable source i will increase the vandalism warning. I have now posted a level 1 vandalism warning on your talk page. Feel free to discuss any questions you might have with this - I don't want you to unknowingly get yourself banned. --Kirok of L'Stok 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 31 Files Vandalism 

message: It doesn't quite fit in any of the categories shown, but I think "Star Trek (Reborn)should be included.  The site is at http://www.startrekreborn.net/viewpage.php?page_id=3.  Essentially, it's presented as a pitch to "reboot" the Original Series in a serialized, realistic drama format with suggested casting such as Sean Patrick Flannery as Kirk, James Marsters as Spock, Gary Sinise as McCoy (suggested before the Star Trek XI rumors), and Michael Paul Chan as a redefined Sulu.  Several teleplays have been writtend and posted on the site. VaGuy1973 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't fit on the page, it doesn't belong here. This page is about produced fan film, video and audio productions, not fan fiction. The project you mention had no chance of ever being produced or considered, even before the new film went into production, and a handful of fanfiction teleplays is hardly notable, as was discussed last October. Star Trek (Reborn) absolutely should not be included on this page. MikeWazowski 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got to agree. I admire some of the script-based virtual series and I applaud the idea of a virtual reboot (not sure about some of the choices) but virtual series are not within the scope of this article, script-based or otherwise.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek (Reborn)