Talk:List of Star Trek films

message: Based on the "Films Section" section above, I am assuming the coloured lines that are used in the reception charts have been around for a long time. I was wondering if anyone knows the decision making behind them? I personally feel that if there is going to be coloured lines used to differentiate the sub-franchises then yellow for TOS and blue for TNG would make more sense, but I also know that we tend to avoid using colours like this for film articles. The fact that we don't use colours in the film overview tables so the charts don't actually correspond to anything is also weird. If no one knows how these colours came to be then I would recommend we remove them or have a discussion about using more logical colours and in a more consistent way. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloured lines 

message: I recently went ahead and added an infobox to the article and was reverted by  who said "I don't think the infobox adds much here". I'm confused by this rationale, as no infobox should really be "adding" anything to an article. The point is to provide a quick summary of the key points that are already in the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I know it isn't required, but it is generally expected and certainly useful to those who may want to see the key things without searching through prose. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a diffuse film series covering decades with drastically different cast, creative teams, etc. I don't particularly see the utility of deciding the most important elements of the franchise are a based on credit, production company, and cumulative grosses without any context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a summary of the details in the article, no infobox has context. I didn't try to cram the different producers, actors, and production companies all into the infobox so I just included the elements that apply to all films. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: There also seems to be some question as to whether the origin movie is set in The Kelvin Timeline. However, during CinemaCon Paramount confirmed that the movie is set decades before the 2009 movie (see reference).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That source does not confirm what timeline the film is set in, you are making an assumption. Before the 2009 film could be in the 24th century of the Prime Timeline, and it could also be early in either timeline since that film is the divergence point. Plus, we have a reliable source saying the film could be a prequel to both timelines. We need to wait until we get further clarification about the setting. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Kelvin'' Origin film

message: Lastly, the topic regarding the specification of "TV film" for Star Trek: 31 -- it has been stated that the movie is "a TV movie". My argument would be that this specifier is misleading to the average leader, given that the term is generally used for a movie that airs on broadcast television. Wouldn't some other statement be more helpful/effective in this article? The movie is developed for a direct-to-streaming platform.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Series created for streaming, including the modern Star Trek series, are called "television series". There is consensus at WP:TV to generally avoid the term "streaming series" as it suggests that there is a difference between series created for streaming and series created for traditional television networks. It also suggests that series created for streaming are more like web series. The same principles apply for films created for streaming. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: TV film(?)