Talk:Star Trek: Hidden Frontier

message: Not sure if this article should be on Wikipedia, there's almost no notability at all outside Star Trek fandom. Not to mention the fact that it's reading as if this fan series was pioneering in some way, or even syndicated. Should we have EVERY single YouTuber listed as "actors" these days? I've added an NN tag. 101.98.171.104 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: There exist dissatisfied ex-HF contributor(s). The indicated person(s) were associated with the production team in its early days and then had a falling out with them.  Said person(s) are also complaining about the poor quality of the series and announcing that it clearly violates copyright laws.
It is true that legally, fanfilms violate the copyright of the franchise owners, but most of them (including Paramount) seem to have adopted the George Lucas doctrine that fanfilms are OK under certain conditions.  They are fun for the fans and free advertising for the franchise, as long as they don't make money and are not offensive.  The HF staff seem to have some such tacit agreement with the powers that be, but some dis-satisfied ex-HF contributor(s) continue(s) to promulgate their vitriol at how awful Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is.  Regarding the quality of the show, I suggest you watch a couple episodes from season three or later (when they got past their 'learning' period and 'hit their stride' on the production) and judge for yourself.  You don't need any self-appointed critic(s) to tell you what's worth your time to watch.
2005.10.20 18:28 EDT -- Solak
Solak 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I edited the article to follow Wiki's rules: namely, that the article itself should convey only factual, non-disputed information. Disputes are for the Talk page. --Carlos 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Legal issues section of the Star Trek, fan made productions article--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You DO know what tacit means don't you? This is the text of their tacit agreement ... "_______________________________________" >(-v^)--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The same thing that was wrong with my first two years at primary school or your first two years at high school. They were learning their craft and are suggesting you see their best work first.--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only factual information in Wikipedia artlces 

message: Another anonymous editor (68.84.254.150) has placed several alleged items of trivia in the trivia section which are nothing more than opinionated gibes or unverifiable information.  A "humorous filmclip . . . on the Internet", for example, does not provide a link to the filmclip.  Other links in the new trivia entries go to irrelevant destinations, such as articles on Maude, The Wiz, SeaQuest DSV, the Controversy subarticle for Brannon Braga, and so forth.  The entries have inherently unverifiable comments such as "most Star Trek fans".  None of the newer entries are written from a neutral point of view; all are the work of the same anonymous editor.  I strongly recommend these entries for deletion. JohnWhiting 11:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section Vandalized 

message: Do you know why the show's use of music which has been generally taken from all Paramount productions (Star Trek and non-Star Trek) decreases numbers of copyright holders that might take offensive action and sent a cease and desist letter? If so, why there are legal reasons to do so? Or have the show's producers paid their royalties to Paramount? Why scores from TNG: The Best of Both Worlds are never used in future episodes after Hell's Gate, Parts 1 and 2? --60.50.56.251 12:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are questions properly referrred to the show's producers on their own message boards rather than speculated on Wikipedia without any basis in verifiable fact. --Carlos 03:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Paramount music 

message: If you live in the dark ages perhaps. Their "high res" is very low res and totally crappy quality, very pixilated and the sound is tinny after being compressed too much. You can choose between bad and worse quality. The text should be more neutral when bescribing this.   IceHunter 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High resolution? 

message: alot of the dialouge in this show comes straight out of west wing, how do we include that information in the article?
: That was an unfortunate uncredited lapse in one episode. It is not indicative of the series as a whole. Carlos (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  the West wing 

message: The folks who maintain this article might want to take the "media" external links and use them as references -- and supports of notability -- in this article. At first glance, there doesn't seem to be objective, supporting material for this project's real-world notability. Given the BBC and other media coverage, that clearly isn't the case -- but one shouldn't have to go to the bullets at the end of the article to find out how/why this article's subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --EEMeltonIV 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good enough reason to have a tag on. Hornplease 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The episode list is awkwardly formatted (stems from having spaces leading the bullet points). You might take a look at Help:Table for some ways to clean it up. Much of the information may be a bit too trivial to be worth including here. What is "Blp"? "Prw"? There's such a thing as too much information, and abbreviations without a deciphering key is just distraction. --EEMeltonIV 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup