Talk:Star Trek: New Voyages

message: Okay... I've seen all the episodes on STNV so far... and I haven't really kept up with the site for a year now... but does anyone know why at the end of "To Serve All My Days" (SPOILER WARNING) Chekov dies but in the start of the next episode he is alive and well? Did I miss something? - Vezz801  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.247.72 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity Error?

message: WTF is this about "Uncertain Future"? There is no source...nothing. Some moron must have posted this because he thinks its funny. I vote to delete that part. What do others think? FreddyE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.201.224.13 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 July 2005  (UTC) 
:I agree. I was searching to find a reference to it before I removed it. If the original editor provides a link to a press release, it should go back up. (Alternatively, it could get reported by any reputable source. I just can't find one-- including major Trek news sites and the New Voyages page and forums.) JRP 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
:: Actually your Annonymous Contributor was correct - NV did indeed get at C&D! The reason he didn't push the point here was probably because Cow Creek Films was able to successfully negotiate a deal with Paramount and he doesn't want people to know that fan films really do have a tenuous but verifiable set of rules from on high! Checkout Jack Marshalls posts on the Trek BBS Be aware that they have a tendancy to wipe old threads (I've made a copy for posterity)--Kirok 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncertain Future?

message: The article had a link to a non-existant page for a list of episodes. I deleted the link and instead created a list in this article. Hawaiian717 07:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodes List

message: Just rv'd an edit by Bkell.  He added a hypen to "five year mission".  As the picture cover clearly has five year without a hyphen, I believe that the correct grammar is "five year" as apposed to "five-year".  I may well be wrong so feel free to change it back if you know that "five-year" is correct. Ed 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "five-year" is a phrase being used as an adjective immediately before the noun it modifies, it should have a hyphen, despite the hyphenless cover. I'm putting the hyphen back in. —Bkell 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and "To boldly go" is a split infinitive. Since when is Star Trek about grammar? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyphen

message: Could we have a definitive answer on how to spell the name of the gentleman who plays the part of Dr, McCoy? On the Cast list on the website his name is John Kelly, however on IMDB and elsewhere he is credited as John M. Kelley. --Kirok of L'Stok 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelly or Kelley?

message: This is actually not about this article, but other articles. I've just been to the james T. Kirk article and NV was mentioned right in right in the first paragraph. I saw similar NV mentions in other Trek related articles. I don't think NV is quite popular enough to be mentioned alongside actual canon Trek, but we can mention NV in the trivia section, or perhaps in the filmograhpy of Trek Veterans who had a part in it. -- Captain Proton 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NV is quite awful - what Ive seen of it - the acting is worse than many highschool plays.  Its should be shot out of a huge CANNON into outer space rather than even being considered as canon.  At best it is some kind of mutant offshoot that is best forgotten.  It should be limited to a trivia note.  Walter Koenigs involvement ranks with his decision to accept the hiddeous role in STARLOST as the Alien Oro.  As far as Takei goes, well....  his recent revelations indicate he just isnt right in the head. Anonymous - 1:13, 4 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke Skywalker that you can use "The Force" to change peoples' minds -especially weak-minded folk. Now, repeat after me: New Voyages is Canon... ... ...New Voyages is Canon... :-) GordonWatts 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NV's not canon

message: Why? The notice box was added, This seems to be a legit article explaining what Star Trek: New Voyages is. Perhaps it needs an additional parenthetical addition (Fan Fiction?) I am sure that the description could be amended to denote Non Canon and so forth. I found this article through google search Wikipedia Star Trek New Voyages. It answered my question. 198.203.175.175 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a couple of zealouts (sic) out there who're taking the view towards NV as the infamous James Dixon took towards the FASA TOS RPG, going out of their way to sabotage any positive support for it for their own reasons. This sort of pettiness should be left out of any Wikipedia decisions, and arguably should be grounds for disqualifying any calls for deletion. From a historical and informational aspect, the NV article in no way violates any Wikipedia rules. It's not a promotional fluff piece, but simply a statement of its existence, a brief historical overview with essential facts, an episode guide and some additional notes and trivia. I wouldn't worry about its being removed any time soon. Sixty Six 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for Deletion???

message: This project, along with other Trek fan film efforts are discussed in a new article in The New York Times: "'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video" 
This would be an appropriate article source to use for citation, in light of the recent concerns over notability/significance.--LeflymanTalk 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 18 New York Times article 

message: "To Serve All My Days" is now officially released and available for download. I've solidified the release date in the main article accordingly. Sixty Six 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New NV Episode Released 

message: The link attached to will Windoms name links to a 1800s politician,not the actor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Windom mislinks 

message: I removed the following sentence from the article because it looks like it will not have any reliable source:
:   Additionally, Nichelle Nichols said in an interview that she was talking with producers about appearing in an episode "next year", presumably meaning 2007.
The bare link itself requires registration at TVLand.com (which I believe is against WP policy for reliable sources), but even after I registered, I couldn't retrieve any info from it (it kept timing out). I also could not find any reference to it using Google or the Internet Archive. Even if it worked, it appears to be a fan-chat forum, not typically considered a reliable source. Just in case someone else can resolve these problems, here's a partially completed citation that can be edited and pasted into place in the article:
* 
— Jeff Q (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nichelle Nichols interview 

message: I heard there was to be a spin off of New Voyages called First Voyages. Is this true?
:To quote the top of this very page: “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: New Voyages article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.”That said… yes, it does seem to be true. “…the New Voyages spin-off series "Star Trek: First Voyages"…” “…Star Trek: New Voyages and its spinoff, Star Trek: First Voyages…” etc.… use Google. —Frungi 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff- First Voyages? 

message: The NV site is down, but the torrent site lists “Come What May” as the pilot, episode 0, and the numbering starts with “In Harm’s Way” as episode 1. This article lists the pilot as episode 1, “In Harm’s Way” as episode 2, etc. Is there a reason? —Frungi 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed(?) by an anonymous user. —Frungi 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode numbers 

message: :Image:NewVoyagesCast.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 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 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NewVoyagesCast.jpg

message: Unlike the official Star Trek series prior to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the CGI-rendered ships are able to move in all dimensions rather than just the horizontal plane. This has been the subject of some controversy. ... ... ... and so on and so forth da-da-de-da
Apart from being unsourced and long-winded, this is also nonsense. Since when is there a "horizontal plane" in space? 86.136.8.212 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could have meant horizontal with respect to the tv screen. Dr.K. (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That huge production notes paragraph 

message: Hello all, 
I've recently commented on a couple of things here in the Talk section. To ensure that no one presumes a hidden conflict of interest (though this information is on my User Page pretty prominently), I figured I should post this here:
I am Robert Mauro
Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) 
for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2
    * On the STP2 Forums, I am RobertMfromLI
    * I am contactable via the "Contact Us" link on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2 page or via PM
I am well aware of the terms of the COI, and intend not to violate them, hence also my openness about my identity and role in the production. I am available for any questions regarding content in the STP2 Wiki page and of course will attempt to obtain citable references for any answers I provide or advise if that is not possible (what you do with such, is of course up to you).
Thanks to you all for maintaining this - and thank you to whomever fixed the episodes listing for us (for some reason, the last two episodes were being thrown at the bottom of the page after the links - thanks for fixing it).
Best,
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note regarding my identity 

message: Does anyone know if the title "New Voyages" is a reference to the first published work of Star Trek fan fiction, Star Trek: New Voyages, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreth?  It seems kind of coincidental that a collection of fan-created television episodes should have the same name as the fan-created short story collection.
And regardless of whether or not this is true, should The New Voyages the collection have its own page?  I found this site while searching for the other.  The New Voyages is kind of a watershed moment in television and film fandom.  I believe it was the first ever fan fiction to be professionally published.  It spawned the entire collection of Star Trek published novels, not to mention novels that were spawned by dozens of other shows and movies, including Star Wars, The X-Files, Murder She Wrote, Monk, Roswell, Serenity, Psych, Buffy, Nightmare on Elm Street, and so forth. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Voyages 

message: The Star Trek New Voyages website still references James Cawley as portraying Captain Kirk.
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/?page_id=141
But on his own Facebook page, James Cawley himself offers a link to what appears to be a new episode of Star Trek New Voyages - starring someone else.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4398950181820&set=pb.1530489018.-2207520000.1364166788&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F775700_4398950181820_8373133_o.jpg
"Join The Crew of The Enterprise as Star Trek: Phase II boldly RE-LAUNCHES it's series with Veteran actor Brian Gross taking over the center seat as Captain James T. Kirk! along with Brandon Stacy as Mr. Spock and John Kelly as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy!"
I just found this announcement on their official forum:
tar Trek: Phase II Announces First Detail of Planned “ReLaunch” This Summer.
Senior Executive Producer James Cawley is thrilled to announce today that Brian Gross will be taking on the role of Captain James T. Kirk for Star Trek: Phase II. Starting with the twelfth episode, “Bread and Savagery”, currently filming in upstate New York, Gross will star as the iconic and most beloved captain in all of space as the award winning series continues to film and release new episodes, comprising the fourth and fifth season of Star Trek: The Original Series.
A talented and very experienced young actor, Gross has been in a number of feature films, including Red Tails, Knifepoint, and Big Mama’s House 2; and has a dizzying long list of guest starring and recurring roles on network TV shows including NCIS: Los Angeles, CSI: New York, Psych, NCIS, Las Vegas, Bones, Joey, JAG, Saving Grace, and Cold Case.
With Cawley’s career as the #1 Elvis impersonator in the United States swinging into full gear, he made the difficult decision that a re-cast was necessary to continue production of Star Trek: Phase II episodes. “I love performing,” said Cawley, “and at this point doing the work that pays the bills on this amazing adventure obviously prevents me from acting as the lead in this hobby.” With a change imminent on the horizon, the Senior Executive Producer decided it was the perfect opportunity to “ramp up” the production several notches. “Bringing in a solid, professional actor to play James Kirk will challenge us all to move things to the next level – and beyond,” he said.
The boundlessly energetic Cawley will remain Senior Executive Producer of the series, as well as continuing to perform the myriad of tasks he’s known for: set construction, props, costumer, costume designer, special effects makeup artist – to name a few.
The addition of Brian Gross as the new star of Star Trek: Phase II is only one of several planned changes to “re-launch” the series this year, which will be revealed over the course of the next several months. Fans can expect previously filmed episodes - including “Kitumba”, “The Protracted Man”, and “Mind-Sifter” – to be released when finished, while Brian will portray Kirk forward on the series that has already won numerous awards, including The TV Guide Award for Best Webisodes (beating out “Battlestar Gallactica”), two Golden Icon Awards (Best Web Series and Best Lead Actor on a Webseries), as well as both a Hugo and Nebula nomination.
http://s1002.photobucket.com/albums/af141/andriech22/?action=view¤t=Kirk.jpg
http://forums.startreknewvoyages.com/index.php?topic=13161.0
RK (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major new cast change - James Cawley steps down 

message: It looks like the name of this series has reverted to "New Voyages"?
http://www.startrekphase2.com/ redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ (which we link to as the official website in the Infobox).
http://www.startrekphase2.de/ (listed as "Official website" in External Links) redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.de/
And on the episodes list page at the .com site, after adopting a "Phase II" logo for Episodes 4 through 8, the cover art for Episode 9 returns to the older "New Voyages" logo.
Ultimately, it really isn't that big a deal which name Wikipedia uses, since a redirect from the other name can always ensure that people end up in the right place. But the "List of..." article and this one are still in conflict as to the name. While I was thinking of finally renaming List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes, now it seems that it might make more sense to rename (back) this article instead! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Names here have been cleaned up. Someone else had moved the article to Star Trek: New Voyages, so over the weekend I requested an administrative move of this Talk page to match. User:Sphilbrick was nice enough to complete that request, and here we are. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name, again 

message: The article—as with many related to fannish concerns—suffered from some clumsy writing, poor organization, and a rather un-encyclopedic tone throughout. For instance, the initial description of the show included trivial information such in which buildings it was filmed. 
I've done some reorganizing and rewriting to improve it and to make it more encyclopedic.
.MrNeutronSF (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised to address some not very encyclopedic writing  

message: Both need work.MrNeutronSF (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other support section is a mess & Production Notes reads like trivia 

message: This is apparently now a tourist attraction authorized by CBS. http://www.treknews.net/2016/07/14/star-trek-tos-bridge-set-tour/ http://startrektour.com knoodelhed (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cawley's sets in Ticonderoga, NY