Talk:Star Trek/Archive 3

message: http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm  Neustriano 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to say whether or not it is a good article. It's WP:OR. McKay 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Ross noting religious elements in Star Trek: 

message: I think that the entire section of 'Phase II' should be removed from this article. This has been mentioned a few times already, but I think this should now be discussed and voted on. 'Phase II' plays a tiny, tiny role in the Star Trek phenomenon, not having even produced a single episode. It's hard to describe to a friend what Star Trek is, when sending him/her a link to this page, only to be followed by an email to explain that one should ignore the 'Phase II' section. Thoughts? enderminh 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some pretty impressive resources went into developing Phase II, many of which were manifested in The Motion Picture. It may not have borne fruit under the "Phase II" label, but it was siphoned into other projects. It's worth keeping here. --EEMeltonIV 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Phase II was important, but does it really belong between TAS and TNG in "TV Series", it wasn't ever made into a television series, so I personally think it's wrong there. Maybe we could create a history section, and put a little blurb there about it? It might fit nicely in "Other storylines and canonicty"? there has been little (but some) leaked about possible storylines for the 9th-11th movies that kinda represent "failed movies" but we don't put them in the movies section. Sure Phase II is more notable then any of those failed movies, but it wasn't actually a television series. McKay 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Note that Phase II already has an article of its own. How about getting rid of this section in this page, and add a sentence to the Television series section that says something like (changes italized) "The Original Series was canceled after its third season due to low ratings, it has served as the foundation for five additional Star Trek television series as well as a six series that was in planning but never materialized. Altogether, the six broadcasted series comprise a total of 726 episodes ..." enderminh 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'Phase II' from this page 

message: I'd like to make a comment on the opening sentence of the article: "Star Trek is an American science fiction franchise". I don't really agree with the word "franchise" having such prominence here. Sure, Star Trek has become a big franchise in the business world and a lot of money is being made out of it, but I don't feel that a "franchise" gets to the core of defining in an initial sentence what Star Trek really is. Anyone else agree? Prlewis0 08:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Franchise 

message: Someone had been removing links throughout wikipedia star trek articles to Memory Alpha.  Is there a policy behind this or is someone unjustly tampering?  I think the links to Memory Alpha should be kept for greater facility in comparing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.122.203 (talk • contribs) 
:They're not being removed; another user turned the text link into a little infobox-ish thing. Look on the right side of the screen. --EEMeltonIV 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Tampering with Memory Alpha Links?!

message: I have seen a Star Trek series on VHS back in the 80's and it was possible to hire it in the video shops in Stockholm at the same time as Star Trek TNG. I am not shure about the complete name of this series, but it was something like Excalibur, Excelsior or even New Frontieer (Something) (This series was NOT the original, it was NOT Deep Space Nine, it was NOT Voyager or Enterprise, it was another series with real actors).
It was possible to even purchase this series on VHS in the shops back in 1995. And suddenly it was lost, gone forever? I haven't seen it since 1995. Does someone old enough (over 30) remeber it? Or have someone more than myself seen it? Or does someone know why it's gone? It was back in the 80's and once in 1995, so my memory of it isn't so good. :-(
Finaly, don't say that it doesn't excist just because you haven't seen it, or that I have done a mix up with some other Star Trek series, because I have not. Don't say that it must have been a fan made series, because it was NOT.
Greetings from Tom
:The only series that was at all started with production that did not air is Star Trek: Phase II. Other than that, I know you didn't want it said, but it had to either not exist, or was a fan made series. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. --OuroborosCobra 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be TOS, or it could be TAS? New Frontiers was a licensed Book series, but that was in the 90s. McKay 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does someone know where the lost Star Trek series have gone or even it's name? 

message: I was wondering if we could start a Star Trek history section.  Not of the universe, but of the show.  Like how Roddenberry came up with the idea in the first place. the fact that the franchise's ownership changed from NBC to paramount, the trekunited attempts to save the series enterprise.  that should clean a lot of things up and make this page and make this article more encyclopedic.  Oldag07 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the page is too big as it is, but feel free to create a separate article, like History of Star Trek or something. McKay 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this page is 34,052 bytes.  My university page, with just got FA status was 87000ish.  we got plenty of spaceOldag07 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it happened to them doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the WP:SIZE guidelines, which states 32k is the general guideline. Having said that, a summary section on History should be here anyway, even if we have a page for it. McKay 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Current status and future and star trek phase ii can be absorbed into such a summary. should keep the length down.  any suggestions on where to start research? btw, do you want me to archive this talk page, it is massive.Oldag07 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the obvious source for starting a history of Trek would be Stephen Whitfield's  The Making of Star Trek, published in, I believe, 1968.  It went through many reprintings, and detailed the genesis of the first series.
Mark Sublette 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The article isn't comprehensive enough yet. There's barely anything about the show and the film's creation, and if the lead summarises the article why are none of the themes of the franchise discussed in the article? Alientraveller 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: I need ST editors who are more experienced than I to deal with the situation that is rapidly developing over at Battle of Wolf 359.  User:EEMeltonIV did a large chop last night and cut out a list of ships that is factually mentioned and referenced in Star Trek episodes.  His reason was that he didnt feel such a list deserved to be in the article and he then became sarcastic on the talk page when I reverted his changes.  I've had a few run-ins with this guy and he usually degrades to sarcasm and borderline name calling when he doesnt get his way.  His crowning achievement was bringing up a months old closed Arb Com case in an edit summary as an attempt to cast a shadow on another editor .  At this point, other editors need to become involved.  He is removing factually referenced material from articles.  Time to put a stop to it. Thank you. -38.119.112.187 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also want to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek. --EEMeltonIV 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good MATURE suggestion.  Thank you!  Thats all that we need to make this work.  I wont have time to pursue it further as the real world calls.  But now other Trek editors may get involved and fix as you suggested.  An MA link has already been added.  That probably would do just as well. -38.119.112.190 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help on an ST article

message: Why is a list of homosexual charecters allowed but not a list of heterosexual?  Reverting vadalism.68.19.212.161 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * For the same reason there isn't a discussion of white characters on Star Trek.  Do you really need to have this explained to you?  The LGBT article discusses fan speculation and controversy surrounding Star Trek's dealing with (or lack of dealing with) gay issues.  Why are you so threatened by its existance?   --Etacar11 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't disallowed.  If you'd like to write an article on heterosexuality in Star Trek, more power to you.  I suggest you focus on Seven of Nine's blatant sexualization, Kirk and Riker's womanizing habits, and the Borg Queen attempting to seduce Data in First Contact.  The reason the link is being removed from the article is that it seems to other editors (including myself) that the link to the non-existent heterosexuality article is intended to make "statement" about homosexuality, and is not an attempt to improve this article - that violates Wikipedia: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and treads on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns.  -- stillnotelf is invisible 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I second the above opinion. 2Misters 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you weren't just a little bit homophobic, do you think you would even be saying this? 79.65.31.77 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterosexual vs Homosexual 

message: Whoever wrote that Berman's introduction of Seven of Nine increased Voyager's ratings should have consulted the archived debate where it was proven definitively that the ratings continued to fall. Check "85 VOY ratings did NOT increase with the addition of "Seven of Nine". Check also the discussion of Nielsen Media Research where the entire ratings archive for Voyager was compiled. When I get a few minutes I'll dig through history and find the way it was correctly phrased. As of now, I've corrected the erroneous entry from the BIG FAN of Seven of Nine. --Nephandus 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven of Nine did NOT increase Voyager's ratings, once again. 

message: Shouldn't there be a segment concerning G4's airing of the show?
DrWho42 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, primarily true, although I feel there should be some segment concerning what the Spock Market is and how it operates, but again another subset of trivia. DrWho42 01:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek 2.0 

message: I don't think the list of multi-part episodes is appropriate for the main Star Trek article. I suggest moving it to List of Star Trek episodes. Marky1981 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Also, we need to kill at least 8k, to bring the article down to size. Anynting else that should be seperated? McKay 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought it down a lot, but users generally prefer it long and redundant.--StAkAr Karnak 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the section you deleted was restored is because the topic still needs a summarization in the main article, and until that's created, the whole section will stay. There is no harm in having more information than not, when that information is correct. Also, why does it need to go down 8k? I wasn't aware of a limit, and Star Trek is such an encompassing subject that it requires a large article. Newnam(talk) 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of multi-part episodes 

message: Mabye this is just my own interpretation, but it seems fairly obvious to me that there are certain communist ideals present in Star Trek; the lack of currency, the fact that everyone works for the benefit of everyone else without the drive of wealth. I can't remember exactly which, but in a Next generation episode several chryogenically frozen humans are found from the 2oth century. One of those is looking forward to collecting the results of hundreds of years of interest, yet cannot collect because of the disappearance of currency. The crew members seem bemused by this drive for wealth. Surley this ideal deserves a mention? Monkeymox 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode you're looking for is "The Neutral Zone".  If you can find a verifiable source which discusses Star Trek vs communism, feel free to add it. Jpers36 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism?

message: I have seen most of the Star Trek shows and movies, and I have noticed that, while they always say stuff about earth being 'united' most everyone speaks with American accents and looks American, with most cultural references being American. This is funny since with the 'united earth' with 'everyone working to further humanity', communism is what they seem to have (which by the way, would never work).
I also notice that, while they talk about the 'federation' of many alien species, that almost all of Star-Fleet crews are human.
Seems to me that this these things should be talked about in the article. 65.27.139.162 11:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy? 

message: Someone is trying to delete the ctaegory :Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go  to the talk page, and try to keep this category in existence. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Star Trek soundtracks]] deletion