Talk:Lists of Star Trek episodes

message: This is hardly a list of Star Trek episodes.  it really just a list of the first episode, or the first of each season.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.235.136 (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't Qualify

message: There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions poll

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move all. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Support, of course, as the nominator. --`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded. A few extra days won't hurt, and rushing it might be causing more trouble then it's worth. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Please note the fact that this move did not require administrator assistance. You didn't have to list this at WP:RM. As it states at the top of the page:
Doing this would have saved me a few minutes of my time that I could have spent helping other users on Wikipedia. Please read instructions before using any one of Wikipedia's request pages. Thank you very much for your future cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However, I should note that I do approve of the efforts made to have a straw poll to gauge consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we know, and normally we would have just done the moves ourselves. Unfortunately this otherwise trivial matter has generated a three month debate and now an arbcom case. Had it not been for that, we would have just dived into the page moves. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. The only reason i put them through Request Moves was because a certain editor has decided these kind of moves where causing some kind of wikipedia-wide mass disruption. I figured a Request Move would make it 'official'. But i guess even to the outside neutral observer, these moves are not contraversial. --`/aksha 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion on this matter is available at User talk:IanManka#Star Trek episode page moves. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Support, of course, as the nominator. --`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support, of course, as the nominator. --`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: Comment: Two days into this move request, an outside observer might be tempted to close the request early under WP:SNOW, and understandably so (at this writing, the count is 11 support, 0 oppose).  However, since this is related to a current ArbCom case, and since the normal 5-day period overlaps with Christmas, when many editors will not be checking Wikipedia very often, I suggest that even though it seems obvious which way this will go, potential closing admins leave the request open for a few days extra.  We don't want anyone complaining that this move was done while the backs of less frequent editors were turned, and a few days' wait won't hurt anyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. A few extra days won't hurt, and rushing it might be causing more trouble then it's worth. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
Please note the fact that this move did not require administrator assistance. You didn't have to list this at WP:RM. As it states at the top of the page:
Doing this would have saved me a few minutes of my time that I could have spent helping other users on Wikipedia. Please read instructions before using any one of Wikipedia's request pages. Thank you very much for your future cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However, I should note that I do approve of the efforts made to have a straw poll to gauge consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we know, and normally we would have just done the moves ourselves. Unfortunately this otherwise trivial matter has generated a three month debate and now an arbcom case. Had it not been for that, we would have just dived into the page moves. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. The only reason i put them through Request Moves was because a certain editor has decided these kind of moves where causing some kind of wikipedia-wide mass disruption. I figured a Request Move would make it 'official'. But i guess even to the outside neutral observer, these moves are not contraversial. --`/aksha 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion on this matter is available at User talk:IanManka#Star Trek episode page moves. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: WP:RM Star trek episode Where No One Has Gone Before. See Talk:Where No One Has Gone Before#Requested move. Simply south 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where No One Has Moved Before 

message: I added total nr of episodes as i think that's information people might  look for. I don't think counts as Wikipedia:No original research as per Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations DoctorHver (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  total episode 

message: What would people think about including years and/or episode count here (SD:WAY 1970-1978, 41 episodes)? It makes it much easier to track which series are ongoing and which are concluded without having to click through to specific series pages. I feel like this and similar pages (Lists of Star Trek episodes) should maybe be tables. 71.175.177.174 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There are overview details for all the series at List of Star Trek television series. We shouldn't expand the scope of this article without addressing the concerns that led to the current version (per the #Proposed changes section above). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Include: Years and Episode Count?