Talk:Star Trek spin-off fiction

message: Seems to me that it's more "encyclopedic" for the title to begin with the general topic, followed by the specific reference. "Other" doesn't strike me as a way to begin the title of an encyclopedia article that belongs under a more specific heading. Article titles should move from the general to the more specific. --Carlos 15:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of article title 

message: I don't mean to be a pest, but some of the stuff on this page is borderline self-promotion (see the Star Trek: Pioneers image page history for an example).  Please don't use wikipedia as ad-space for your Star Trek fan project.  If you must do this sort of self-promotion, make sure that the thing actually exists, and please have someone else do it or at least make sure its not so obvious that you wrote it.  --IRelayer 23:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self promotion 

message: I have new non-profit Star Trek fanfilm I am working on that I think is very ambitious and based purely on canon concepts, but also introduces many situations unfamiliar that have not been referenced on the Trek movies and television shows. It is entitled, STAR TREK: RELEVATIONS! More information will come soon.
:You haven't stole part of your title, by any chance, from the highly-successful Star Wars: Revelations, have you? The Wookieepedian 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May a recommend an investment in a spell-checker before releasing this move. They are really very cheap these days. DJ Clayworth 18:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand new Star Trek fanfilm 

message: First, you're free to leap to whatever conclusions you want about my motivations but at least I sign my name to my comments and my edits.
Second, being a so-called "work in progress" is fine, but it doesn't entitle you to create links to things that simply don't appear to exist and then you turn around and claim that they support the assertions you make. That's not the intent of the "work in progress" nature of Wikipedia.
I don't have a problem with copyright concerns being identified with regard to fan films. I do have a problem with you claiming that Viacom or Paramount has said something, citing a Web site, and there appearing to be no such claim on the page that you link to. That's a dishonest presentation of your opinions, not a factual representation of what Viacom or Paramount has stated.
I'm willing to take the time to point out each instance of this type of dishonesty in your article. Since you're so "certain" that your assertions are true then why don't you shore up your sources instead of hiding behind the claim that it's a "work in progress." That claim does not exempt you from Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources. And, once again, unlike you, I have the courage of my convictions to sign my name to this --Carlos 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Questionable Future' inaccuracies 

message: As I've thoroughly documented, every single one of your sources poses a problem in supporting the claims you make in this article. That's 12 serious problems in a one-paragraph article. Consequently, I believe I'm justified in deleting the article. If you find sources that actually support your assertions, then I invite you to re-post it. But if you do so with the same or similarly inadequate sourcing, then I will notify Wikipedia authorities. --Carlos 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: It appears that "Paramount going after fan fiction productions" appears to have merit because that is what copyright and trademark owners tend to do (with their army of lawyers).  But until you can site sources for these actions (that such actions have taken place), your statements about these actions will have to stay out of this Wikipedia article.  Val42 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses in general 

message: I wanted to see if you're supporting your writing, as you assert.  I checked the first four links in the disputed paragraph and found that they aren't relevant to where they are linked in the article.  So you get no points for the links.
Second, myself and many other Wikipedia editors, give less weight to comments and edits made by anonymous users.  After all, registration doesn't even require your real name.  Myself, the longer that a user remains anonymous and making highly controversial edits, they lose what little weight they have.
Note that I'm not the person who checked all of the links and disputed each of them.  Each of them were well-written and well-formatted.  (Someone who bothers to learn the social and technical rules of what he's editing.)  I just checked out your links and found them seriously wanting.  While I find what you wrote believable, because of what companies and their armies of lawyers have done before, I suggest that you look in to your own links and try again for relevance.  Val42 06:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to response 

message: Made entry a little less of an advertising puff piece :)  In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the cast and crew.  --Korvar The Fox 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's probably a good call.  Thanks Mike. :) Nick-C 17:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intrepid Entry

message: The Wookieepedian reverted an edit, claiming it's OK to leave an article posted while the dispute is being resolved or until the disputed sources in the 'Questionable Future for Fan Films' article are corrected. Sorry, but this goes against wikipedia rules.
I'd also encourage people involved in the dispute to re-read the rules about how the Talk pages are supposed to work so we keep in mind that the aim here is not sniping but working to achieve consensus based on verifiable sources. --Carlos 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder about how to handle disputes 

message: This page has already reached 36Kb, well past the 32Kb suggested limit. Much as I would love to rebut some of the statements here (You can read what I have to say here), I believe a decision needs to be made as regards to whether this page should be split or have extraneous material summarised.
--Kirok 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add to it. The 32kb size is suggested, not required. The Wookieepedian 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OklyDokely--Kirok 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: This was the best I could come up with at short notice. Feel free to add or edit with any verifiable content. The conjecture and opinions of experts is great, even from people who are prepared to put their personal reputation on the line but from....?--Kirok 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good day, sir. ;) The Wookieepedian 21:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, don't fight in here, this is the war room! The Wookieepedian 04:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Issues section 

message: Isn't that the alien menace from the New Jedi Order series?
If so, wouldn't the Star Trek Yuuzhan Vong Invasion be a Star Trek/Star Wars cross-over or at least should credit Star Wars?
DrWho42 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yuuzan Vong... in Star Trek?!? Now this I've gotta hear! What's your source for this? The Wookieepedian 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article, actually.. =P Right betwixt Star Trek: Intrepid and Tales of the Seventh Fleet.DrWho42 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a fan film, so it wouldn't be canon. And I'm glad it isn't, since it would flame up the old Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate again! :O The Wookieepedian 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuuzhan Vong 

message: Bearing in mind the significance that fan produced material has had, not just on Star Trek fandom, but on Science fiction as a genre and the effect that Trek fandom has had on society, I feel justified in creating a seperate article for "Star Trek, fan made productions" For today all i have done has been to cut and paste the Fan production material from on article to the other, so no-ones material has been lost.--Kirok 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the link that you gave above.  No article.  I checked for other articles with similar names.  There are none.  I then checked for other edits by this same user.  There are none.  The cut was done, and the paste hasn't shown up for over an hour now.  That's a long time for just a cut-and-paste "from on article to the other, so no-ones material has been lost."  Until the material shows up, I've reverted the "article split" that wasn't. Val42 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not an administrator, so I don't know how long it could possibly take.  But it should not have taken as long as it has been.  Try the edit again.  But make sure that the new article is there before deleting the information from the old article. Val42 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: :Image:StarTrekComic2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StarTrekComic2001.jpg

message: :Image:STMissionToHoratius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:STMissionToHoratius.jpg

message: The related link doesn't seem relevant to the article, wouldn't a link to Memory Beta be more appropriate.  The ST Expanded link probably should be removed.  The Star Trek fan productions articles might be a better place for that link. 122.104.225.238 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Star Trek spin-off fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080313234429/http://rhandley.0catch.com:80/trekstrips/ to http://rhandley.0catch.com/trekstrips
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Star Trek spin-off fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041025/http://store.yahoo.com/omegapp/tokyopop.html to http://store.yahoo.com/omegapp/tokyopop.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025235300/http://www.idwpublishing.com/titles/startrek.shtml to http://www.idwpublishing.com/titles/startrek.shtml/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://idwpublishing.com/news/dujour.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Trek spin-off fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219151525/http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/ExMachinaNotes.html to http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/ExMachinaNotes.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified