Template talk:Star Trek

message: Should Phase II really be in this list?  Given that they never produced a single episode?  Maybe we should add Harve Bennett's Starfleet Academy to the list of films. AlistairMcMillan 22:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with Phase II being on there.  Especially since it doesn't make the template any bigger. Cburnett 00:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phase II doesn't affect the appearance of the template.  It does affect the meaning though.  What are we listing?  Things that may or may not have been Star Trek series and movies, or things that actually were Star Trek series and movies.  As I said before, if we have Phase II on the template, then why don't we have Bennett's Star Trek VI: Starfleet Academy.  It keeps things nice and clear if we just draw the line at productions that actually produced something.  You don't have a finished product, you don't go on the list. AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase II

message: I'm not that crazy about the new style of this template.  I personally think the old one looked better.  (No offense intended, Wookieepedian) I'm not the only one with an opinion, though, so I hesitate to do a reverse-edit unless there is a consensus.  --  CALQL8 04:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I think the new template looks horrible, and completely at odds with most other templates of this sort on Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 09:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Style 

message: Since absolutely nothing has been confirmed about which era this film takes place, I've moved the link for XI under an "Upcoming films" heading. Feel free to argue that, or even change it back, this is just my two cents. --ZeromaruTC 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek XI 

message: I added an "Other" section with links to Books, Comics, Games, and Music, similar to the Star Wars template, because the template seems to be for the entire franchise. Eridani 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other section

message: I'd like to merge Template:Startrek2 into this template. Do we really need both? This one is much more streamlined and is consistent with many, many other Wikipedia nav templates. Aatrek (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I don't think either the bare-bones or the expanded production staff setup is ideal. The expanded formatting is an eyesore, and breaking the staff down by "area of expertise" seems an unnecessary granularization, esp. for a franchise in which folks rarely stayed within their job title "bubble". Beyond that, though, are the actual entries: TV directors and executive producers but not their movie equivalents? Some writers from some series? 
Perhaps the best thing would be just to list/link executive producers, and then link/create a List of Star Trek production staff, which I'm actually pretty sure exists somewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it doesn't bother me if we do what you suggest, I thought that it's better to have all the people who contributed to Star Trek listed or at least have a link to them. The problem i had with it before was it didn't inculde a all the movie directors and only had JJ Abrams and it had Gene Roddenberry at the end and no mention that he created Star Trek for people who are seeing Star Trek may not know that he created it. B64 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding production staff listing 

message: add links to Star Trek: Enterprise (season 1) and Star Trek: Enterprise (season 2).
143.238.91.206 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Chzz  ►  05:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 143.238.91.206, 20 August 2011 

message: Please change "Episodes (Season 12)" links in the Enterptise group to "Episodes (Season 12)"
143.238.91.206 (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 143.238.91.206, 27 August 2011 

message: The title "Alternate Reality" seems inconsistant with the other parts of the Star Trek franchise. Specifically in that "Alternate Reality" is an in-universe description. The Original Series is not titled 'Original Timeline: Captain Kirk Era'. It is titled The Original Series. Same is true of the The Animated Series, The Next Generation, etc. Shouldn't WP:COMMONNAME apply here? Most refer to 'Star Trek' (2009) as a reboot. That is consistant with how the other parts of the Star Trek franchise are titled as well as with other franchises on Wikipedia such as Planet of the Apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_of_the_Apes. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would like to hear from more editors on this. Various terms have been used to describe the new films. Proposal is to be consistant and use the term 'Reboot' throughout based on WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reboot, so "Alternate Reality" is more correct.  "COMMONNAME" is for article titles, not for how we refer to things.  Punctuation, spelling, etc. are all adjusted to be accurate, not to reflect common usage.  So, the section should read "alternate reality" because that's what it is.  It is not a reboot, no matter how many people call it that. Rhindle The Red (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This was resolved 2 years ago. The new films are a reboot. While done in a slightly different way from other reboots, they are still a reboot. That is what they are refered to as almost universally. The term "Alternate Reality" is only used by a small group of hardcore trekkies and is not consistant with how other parts of the Star Trek are identified thus would be confusing to most. And since the section headings are titles WP:COMMONNAME does apply. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Still calling it a "reboot", huh?  How about "Kelvin timeline", since that's how CBS and all licensed media refers to it (because it is a separate timeline within the canon, not a reboot, which would be unrelated to the Prime universe)?    Rhindle The Red (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Paramount has never referred to the films as alternate or Kelvin timeline. It is a plot cruft that is really known only to hardcore fans. That said, the Star Trek (film series) page was recently revised as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film_series)#Reboot_(Kelvin_Timeline)_films I'm sure the same or something similar can be done here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I can't find Paramount using the term, but CBS does and, as I pointed out, Star Trek's official website calls it the Kelvin Timeline and it's used on at least one officially licensed book (in the link) and by the online game (other link).  It's known to anyone who knows Star Trek, not just hardcore fans.  It may have started as cruft, but it's official now.  Paramount makes the films, but CBS controls pretty much everything else, including canonical status.  They call it the Kelvin Timeline.  Wikipedia should follow suit.  (And it's a more accurate description, anyway.)  Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Kelvin timeline does fit well, has sources and real-world use, and it also implies "alternate reality" in its wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Just to set the record straight the official website does not use the term "Kelvin Timeline". Any search of that site of the term only shows press releases regarding the book and online game. And since Paramount produces the films, it is in no way 'official'. Plus it is really only known by hardcore fans. I know many people who are fans of Star Trek who never heard the term until I mentioned it to them. The Star Trek (film series) page lists the new movies as "Reboot (Kelvin Timeline) films", something similar can be done here if everyone is willing to compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reboot (Kelvin timeline) works as a subsection title, if it's not Kelvin timeline alone (so is this section in canon incorrect?). I'd remove 'films' as that is self-explanatory from the full section header. Quote marks probably not needed around "Reboot", and 'Kelvin' probably should be italicized, as the name of a ship. Good idea, at least until a common canon name is settled. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Done. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reboot or Alternate Reality? 

message: Someone forgot to add Klingon language'. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Klingon language

message: I recently simplified the structure of the template so that the television and film sections were more concise and did not take up as much space. This was reverted by SonOfThornhill, on the grounds that it should be discussed here first. Are there any objections to my new version? The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The original structure was based on the different parts of the franchise (the original series, the next generation, etc.). While the new structure is simpler, it may be harder for non-hardcore trekies to navigate. How much space something takes up should not be a concern, providing a structure that helps users find what they are looking for without confusion should be. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could subdivide the films section like this:
The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: That would work. SonOfThornhill (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: 46.2.185.165 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request

message: Please could editors stop adding studios involved in the production of the show to this navbox.  The studios are not intrinsically linked to the product and are too tangential for inclusion.  Imagine the number of navboxes that would be on the studio's page if we started including studios in navboxes.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucille Ball, Desilu, Paramount, these are names directly responsible for creating Star Trek along with Roddenberry, for keeping it on the air at a time when it was both struggling to be on the air, and continued the series over objections to the point that Ball had to sell Desilu as it sank due to her insistence that Star Trek had to survive and would become a major franchise. Unlike other shows, Star Trek has a fifty-year history which is tied directly to a few studios and to the beginning trust in the series by Lucille Ball. I of course don't advocate studios being on all television show templates, yet this one can be called a clear exception due to its history. Can someone with the project put a notice about this discussion at the Project page? Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were behind the production, but they do not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX.  Sure, they belong on an infobox, but the ties are not close enough for inclusion here, and there's no case for exception here as giving Star Trek a higher standing than any other show would fall foul of WP:UNDUE.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thanked the edit because the list does seem bloated, I have no idea what Lucille Ball has to do with Star Trek out side of being connected to Desilu. Iirc (I have not checked any sources) Desilu was the home of Star trek (or was it Paramount ?) but, outside of one or two production studios any other are just promoters and not involved with creating the series and should not be listed.  Mlpearc (open channel) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob is correct, this seems like a similar situation to linking writers from film/TV navboxes - yes, they created the content, but we can't list everything every writer has ever written in both prose, table, and navbox form in a single page. Navboxes should be for more specific articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Studios do not belong here

message: * Discovery
**episodes
**After Trek
**Short Treks "Runaway" Crowley93 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018 

message: Under documentaries, could you add in "What We Left Behind", the documentary about Deep Space Nine?  There is not a separate Wikipedia page on it, but it is discussed at: Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine#What_We_Left_Behind Geoffrey1158 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: WP:WTAF. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2019 

message: The portals  and  added in this edit should be removed as they are general portals and are not specific to the subject of the navbox. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . I removed the TV portal, but left the one for speculative fiction.  It's at least narrower and covers Star Trek in general.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still no justification for its inclusion.  Portals should only be included if they match the topic.  Navboxes should not be used to populate tangential non-specific portals in this way.  The only portal that would remotely be appropriate would be Portal:Star Trek if it existed.  212.135.65.247 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and portal:Star Trek existed, if memory serves, but was recently lost in the deletionists paradise of portal deletions. And thanks, looking at the coding helps me with an edit I was wondering how to do a couple a few days ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. -- /Alex/21 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019 

message: Proposed change:  Add roman numerals I-VI to the first 6 movies, changing
to
Advertised at WT:WikiProject Star Trek. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add roman numerals to first 6 movies 

message: I think that in the cultural influence section we should include the Saturday Night Live sketch "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" 209.175.26.221 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea, thank you.  Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 

message: I think that in the cultural influence section we should include the Futurama episode "Where No Fan Has Gone Before". Oath2order (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , and thank you for a very good suggestion. Nice catch. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 

message: I forgot, USS Callister of Black Mirror should probably be here. Oath2order (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oath2order Be where? -Lemonaka‎ 10:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: -Lemonaka‎ 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would it not qualify? Oath2order (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

text: , okay, added it back with the year and descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 

message: After #Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 I started to wonder. What do you think, should the Star Trip episode of Legends of Tomorrow be there too? Personally, it's the best Star Trek parody ever, but does it fit to the rules? IKhitron (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, which episode is "Star Trip"? Oath2order (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 5x13. IKhitron (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trip