Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 2

message: Do we really need multiple lists along the lines of List of Star Trek ships and List of Starfleet ship classes?  These are essentially the same article simply ordered differently (and both of them needing some love), but the former list has a few Klingon and Romulan vessels at the bottom.  Do people think it would be a good idea to merge these two together?  --Mnemeson 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant lists

message: I am working to improve Star Trek Voyager articles and have found that many of the articles do not match naming convention. For example Kathryn Janeway should be at Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) surely. i wont change anything until told to ofcourse. --Mad onion 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've got a concensus forming above - looks like Article name (Star Trek), and in cases of multiple articles with the same titles, something else that distinguishes them, e.g. USS Intrepid (NCC-1631) (Star Trek), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)... does that look right to people?  That way, Appalachian would be USS Appalachian (Star Trek), Janeway would be Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek), the Intrepid class testbed would be USS Intrepid (NCC-74600) (Star Trek), etc... hehe, I just realised how much moving is gonna be in order when we decide on this ;-) --Mnemeson 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good to me (see two headings above). --EEMeltonIV 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that sounds great, well i wont do anything for now but as soon as there is a consensus i will start dealing with it for Star Trek Voyager. thats what im trying to improve for now. btw, how is a consensus reached. Im new here so any help would be appreciated. --Mad onion 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The two parantheses, I've been thinking the same for a short while now, and I think you're right, it looks messy - USS Enterprise 1701-D (Star Trek) would be neater.  Inserting the periods, I have to admit to being a lot less keen on - I honestly doubt anyone would try to access the articles by typing them in, so it would make finding the articles harder.  No naval ships on Wikipedia that I'm aware of use the periods inside the prefixes (although I don't know if official documentation about them uses the periods in those cases).  I also feel it starts to look messier again, which it would be good to move away from.  --Mnemeson 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i think the dots would look messy. also, when i begin to move articles i will make the article with just the name a redirect. so for example i will move the article Kathryn Janeway to Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) but will make Kathryn Janeway a redirect to the new article. --Mad onion 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there also some consensus that ship names that only appear once (e.g. USS Prometheus, USS Stargazer) can eschew the registry from the article title? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) -> USS Stargazer (Star Trek)? --EEMeltonIV 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, yeah --Mnemeson 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move articles to match naming convention

message: The USS Prometheus (NX-59650) article addresses this to some level (and there is debate on the talk page, but unfortunately there's no consistenty as to which should be used.  The Prometheus articles themselves (ship and class) use NX-59650, but other articles linking to it refer to her as NX-74913.  Actually, the Prometheus class article uses both registries - 59650 at the top, and 74913 at the bottom, with no comment on the conflict.  59650 was only used on the external hull, while 74913 was used on all displays, etc, but the external hull is vastly more visible.  Although I think 74913 is more likely to be right, I don't mind which we settle on it, but it would probably be good if we could settle on one, instead of the current very confusing situation --Mnemeson 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prometheus Registry

message: I just majorly changed the main Star Trek article. I'm wondering what people think, and what else needs to be done before nominated for FAC (since I tried a Peer Review and no one commented, I thought this might be a better forum). Newnam(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Star Trek]] article 

message: If anyone is willing; They could help me update the ships to use this new infobox. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed to "Infobox Fictional Spacecraft" per the category. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Infobox Fictional Spacecraft}} 

message: Here is what I am seeing in a lot (most?) Star Trek articles on Wikipedia:
* the birth and death dates of fictional characters.
* plot synopsis framed as biography.
* performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles and devices.
* an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations.
* fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.
Whats wrong with that? Wikipedia considers that specificaly non-encyclopedic. It is all laid out in WP:WAF. I see some cleanup where citations have been added to in-univeres articles but that seems to fall way short of Wikipedia guidelines. If you write an "in-univeres" article with citations or add citations to an "in-univeres" article you have --->an "in-univeres" article with added citations. Although using a prose style like that can sometimes be acceptable Wikipedia asks that it be used in small sections and maybe not at all since an out-of-universe perspective "will make make it more accessible to those unfamiliar" with the work in question (Exceptions). 
 
annoying ;^)Halfblue 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out-of-universe perspective cleanup needed

message: Hi all, I have a question about article naming at the Lost articles, which it looks like you have already discussed, so I could use some opinions. At the Lost episode article, Talk:Fire + Water there is a discussion about whether to move it to Fire + Water (Lost).  This would make it consistent with the other article titles at :Category:Lost (TV series) episodes.  However, some people argue that appending the series title is an unnecessary disambiguation.  The Star Trek precedent is repeatedly being cited, so if there's anyone here who would like to offer an opinion, your presence would be much appreciated at Talk:Fire + Water, thanks. --Elonka 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related poll

message: Anyone realise that :Image:IKS_Vor%27cha.jpg is actually the toy version of the Vor'cha? Soemone needs to take a proper image from an episode, or if i have time then i will. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit funny.. 

message: Hey all. FYI, List of Starfleet ship classes is up for deletion. --Fang Aili talk 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Starfleet ship classes]] AfD 

message: The  Ashes of Eden article is currently filled with empty placeholders. Can anyone clean this article up and fill in the relevant information? shotwell 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Ashes of Eden]] 

message: Hey. Many Trek articles are inconsistent as to whether they use stardates or calendar dates. Calendar dates seem to be more accessible to the casual reader; stardates aren't particularly informative for those same casual readers. For we be including stardates at all? Would anyone like to nod their way that, at the very least, we should put the more-accessible calendar dates before, if at all, mentioning stardates? I point you toward the Jean-Luc Picard article as an example -- lots of stardates put before calendar dates, but really if want to put things in temporal context, even compared to other Trek stuff, the actual year is far more useful to me than #####.#. So . . . . ? --EEMeltonIV 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stardate or calendar date? 

message: Could someone from the STWP have a look at Star Trek: Reborn ? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What is a "virtual internet series" anyway ? Thanks, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "virtual series" are just people writing stories in a series like format (20 eps. etc) - There are tons of them, that is no more notable then the rest, AfD it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's writing fan fiction in script format and imagining people in the parts - nn, afd tag added.  Discussion is here --Mnemeson 13:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek: Reborn

message: Eh, Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I hope that there will be some Trek experts here who will know the details of the TNG episode "The High Ground (TNG episode)". Like I said in the talk page there, I think this episode article needs to be brought up to standard, especially as it is a quite notable episode (being (AFAIK) the only one that was ever banned). I can't really write allot about it myself as I only ever saw it once, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to expand it. Thanks.--Hibernian 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode "The High Ground" needs some attention 

message: Should be up shortly. Wikidenizen 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Ground rewrite in process =

message: All ship articles where disambiguated with (Star Trek) on the end some time ago -- this really isnt necessary for a fair few of them and hence they need de-ambiguating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  starship articles. 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: I need someone to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos One. It looks like it'll be deleted, but if there's an appropriate list page it could be merged into, that would probably be better. EVula 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion: Kronos One 

message: Hi.  I have been doing some work on Timeline of Star Trek, by adding a section about the actual real-life history of Star Trek timelines, and  and would welcome comments about my proposed rework of the timeline there to exclude inconsquential backstory mentioned in one episode. (see Talk:Timeline of Star Trek.)
Also please note that I have removed text Rules of Acquisition which was a list of all the rules.  This was probably a copyvio of a book by the same name : some of the rules appear only in that book.  I have reverted back to a list of random ones from episodes, which is probably about the extent we can do.
I've also had to do something similar at Star Trek planet classifications, which had a table of planet classes taken from Star Trek Starcharts.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that copying (a) an entire fictional book (albiet small) and (b) several entire pages of an original work of fiction into Wikipedia is not really on.  I would ask for help identifying on-screen planet classes given, so they can be added one-by-one to Star Trek planet classifications.  Morwen - Talk 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline etc 

message: I've copied text over to a separate Klingon writing systems page, as part of a proposal to break out the Writing systems section of Klingon language.
Reasoning:
# The alphabets discussed there are distinct from both "Klingon languages", which are typically (and officially) written in the Latin alphabet.
# These alphabets can also be used to transcribe English, as the illustrations show.
# Thus the language(s) and alphabet(s) are not tied together in the way that (for instance) the Russian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are tied together.
# Readers can, and may wish to, learn about the language(s) without learning about the alphabet(s) — or vice versa.  The page structure should permit this.
If this is acceptable, the remaining step will be to replace that section in Klingon language with a link to the new page.  A similar link will also be placed in Klingonaase.
Translations and tags will also be needed.  – SAJordan talkcontribs 05:00, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Klingon writing systems

message: shall we have an article rating drive thingy like I have seen other projects do?  Morwen - Talk 12:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does a stub tag not suffice :(? Matthew Fenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, there are lots of low-quality long-winded Star Trek articles.  Have a look at how the comics people do it, for example.  Part of the Wikipedia 1.0 drive! Morwen - Talk 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those ratings systems are pretty POVish imo, for example I started re-writing Weapons of Star Trek and then MeltonXI decided to join in with his "teaching skills" (introducing typos - hehe) - It's now my opinion that the article has gone from an acceptable level to a messy/yucky poorly structured article.. so where as I would rate it now a "Start" he may rate it a "B" Matthew Fenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's shorter, but it's better sourced and actually looks vaguely like an encyclopedia article now.  Isn't that worth something?  We are not aiming to be memory alpha and write entirely in-universe.  I would agree with "Start" with it, though.  Much more can and should be written: it's just was was there before was worse than nothing.   For example this revision was dreadful.  Morwen - Talk 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article rating drive 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD Notice 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I should like to remind contributors that one cannot simply take text from Memory-Alpha and put it here.  Memory-Alpha is under a substantially different licence, so unless you are the original contributor yourself, or get all the people who wrote that text to agree, it is a copyvio to take stuff from there and post it here, where it is supposed to be unde the GFDL.  I've spotted this at four articles today
*Ghost Ship (Star Trek)
*Starfleet Security
*Starfleet Engineering Corps
*Starfleet Medical
I'm worried we have a systematic problem here, and would appreciate help (a) untangling the Starfleet Engineering Corps one, and (b) help purging the Star Trek articles of copyvios from memory-alpha.  Morwen - Talk 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  import of Memory Alpha text 

message: Thought I'd alert anyone who didn't know to the recent AFD debates
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General
Also, there is rather a heated debate at
*Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_5#Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia
Morwen - Talk 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFDs 

message: Can anyone offer any citations or supporting information or ANYTHING to this article? It looks too specific to be completely made up -- it was originally copy-and-pasted from the Daystrom site, but it seems to be largely de-copyvioed now. So, where does this info. come from? --EEMeltonIV 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just stuff made up by DITL.  DITL are nice, they put stuff that they made up in white.  This was all in white.  I have removed the made up stuff now.  Morwen - Talk 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Earth Spacedock]] 

message: Members of the project may be interested to see
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOS TrekMUSE (2nd nomination)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Of Gods and Men
Morwen - Talk 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD roundup 

message: Any idea where we would put an article about the James Blish series of Star Trek adaptions?  They were just titled "Star Trek", "Star Trek 2", etc.   There probably isn't enough material to warrant separate articles, but I could do one about them in general, based on the books themselves, the reprinted introductions I have, Fontana's notes, and Voyages of the Imagination, for starters.  Morwen - Talk 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put this at Star Trek (Blish) for now.  Morwen - Talk 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blish 

message: To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction]]

message: "Redshirt" is up for deletion.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redshirt (character)
It does seem to have severe sourcing problems.  It would be good if we could get sources which do a literary analysis of the redshirt phenomenon, rather than just pop culture references.  Morwen - Talk 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of Star Trek related AfDs recently :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redshirts 

message: Away mission is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away mission. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Away mission]]

message: after DRV decision to overturn the previous "no consensus" ruling, the alternate ranks and insignia page is up at AFD again
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination)
Morwen - Talk 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and another 

message: So, my next proposal for an article improvement drive is Spock.  Spock is an immensely iconic character and his vast status in American popular culture needs rather more than a few mentions in the 'trivia' section, as does Leonard Nimoy's relationship to his character.  If we can get an episode, a character, a starship, and a species up to GA or maybe even FA standards we can provide something to aim at.  Come join in at Spock!
Morwen - Talk 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cult of [[Spock]]

message: As a reult of an AfD, I have moved a page that is under your scope to your project space.  It is accessable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek.  Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: Hi WP:ST... you might be interested in a proposal I have just made at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting. Basically, it amounts to a propsal for a split of the Star Trek stubs category into five parts, relating to TOS, DS9, TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise. These would all form subcategories (or at the very least subtypes) of the main . Any stubs relating to items not covered by these five series directly (e.g., things about the animated series, or about the historic backdrop to the stories - such as Zefram Cochrane) would remain in the main Star Trek stub category. This would make it easier for specialists on any one of the series to find stubs relating to that series more easily. Please feel free to join the discussion at the link above. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub proposal

message: Hi, folks.  This is just a heads-up that there is a move request affecting Star Trek episodes here.  The proposal is to remove disambiguation from article titles that don't need it (such as For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky or  A Fistful of Datas), in keeping with the guidelines Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), as determined by the conversation mentioned above.  (Note that if the moves are made, redirects will still exist at the names with the TLA suffixes, so no links will be broken.)  All editors are welcome to participate.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode title RfC 

message: So, yes, I realised I still have a collection of the old Titan UK Star Trek Monthly from 1995-1998.  This is a pretty decent resource for production notes and suchforth with what was going on at that time.  Have issues #1-#2, #4-#36, #38-#44.  And have put vague description of contents up at Star Trek Monthly.  If anyone wants me to look for anything in particular, let me know.  
Considering trying to get hold of the Fact Files : does anyone have a collection we can access?  
Also, are the show bibles and Writer's Technical Manuals going to be considered citable sources? (as they are not properly published, although gettable hold of)  Morwen - Talk 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now seem to have bought a reasonably complete collection of the Fact Files.  Which is quite scary.  I'm going to have to get a bigger house!  Morwen - Talk 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have the whole set! 19 binders-full, 256 issues, although they're not all filed away! Certainly takes up a lot of room! Marky1981 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Monthly archive available 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I've changed the section of the main project page on "Nomenclature", now that all the episode articles have been moved to fit with the guidelines at WP:TV-NC. 
I've also removed the line about "moving articles to match naming conventions" from the To Do List. 
If the convention of always disambiguating is mentioned anywhere else on this wikiproject, i'd appreciate it if someone could change it. --`/aksha 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nomenclature" guidelines 

message: See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Inline_links_to_Wikia_sites?. Is that something this WikiProject supports? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't something I've ever included in any of the articles I've worked on. I've only ever used the MemoryAlpha links at the bottom of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikilinks" like [[Memoryalpha:Barzan|Barzan]] 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Today I spent some time cleaning up the Star Trek (film series) article, mainly due to contributions from  earlier this year. I checked their contributions history and found over a thousand edits in the past year, and doing some spot-checking, a large number of them appear to be detrimental to the articles in question, with much incomprehensible material due to errors in grammar and English usage, as well as a habit of introducing unsourced personal commentary and redundant text. They seem to be very enthusiastic, and I don't want to rain on their parade, but I think maybe some kind of assistance or intervention may be in order? Unfortunately I haven't really any time available, so maybe some of you could look into it? You can also see some comments I left on their talk page. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I can contribute much to this beyond to say that I observed the same issue with them some time ago. Got as far as my giving them a final warning, after which I didn't see them editing in my Watchlist again. They've received warnings from other editors as well. Hopefully they'll take this to heart before administrator intervention is needed. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there have been over 200 edits since your final warning, many of which are clearly deleterious to the articles, so it seems they haven't taken it to heart so far... If anyone has time to check through their edit history and clean it up, that would be helpful. Not sure what to do for the future, I suppose it depends how they respond. It might be good if a couple more people from here could engage with them, so they realize it's actually a real problem. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to deal with it myself... --IamNotU (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect my form of "dealing with" it would be more iron-fisted than approaches other editors might take, given I did give them a final warning previously, so I'm happy to defer this one to others. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about editor Starspotter 

message: For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting article! I was not aware it existed. Thanks for posting it here! Mocl125 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shakespeare and Star Trek]] 

message: For anyone up to the task, at the article List of Star Trek films and television series, the showrunners column in the television overview table requires sources for The Original Series through to Voyager. -- /Alex/21 04:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television series showrunners 

message: I noticed that there are multiple drafts for the upcoming Section 31 TV series: Draft:Star Trek: Section 31 (TV series) and Draft:Section 31 (TV series). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate drafts 

message: Discussion at . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to [[Template:Star Trek]] 

message: I've got to say, I was a bit shocked just how poor the article on Colm Meaney is.  I'm going to try to work on it, but I'm not great with actors... Hobit (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colm Meaney 

message: The Away team (Star Trek term) redirect was deleted in May 2020, but there are 29 red links pointing to it. What would be a good target or recreating the redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the redlinks could just be removed, honestly. I get the reason for removing the automatic redirect to "landing party", but swapping "away team" with landing party in the text would make it more comprehensible. It's simply not an important target for any kind of coverage Wikipedia would provide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Away team 

message: If anyone is interested, the series overview table at List of Star Trek television series requires sources for the showrunners from TOS to VOY. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not make sense to apply the specific showrunner distinction retroactively to an old show. It is only in recent decades that the term showrunner has come into usage, and unlike Executive producer it is is not a formal credit. A different choice of column heading might be an alternative solution, but that's probably a question for Project TV. -- 109.79.67.53 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for showrunners