This template is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Phase II
Should Phase II really be in this list? Given that they never produced a single episode? Maybe we should add Harve Bennett's Starfleet Academy to the list of films. AlistairMcMillan 22:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with Phase II being on there. Especially since it doesn't make the template any bigger. Cburnett 00:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Phase II doesn't affect the appearance of the template. It does affect the meaning though. What are we listing? Things that may or may not have been Star Trek series and movies, or things that actually were Star Trek series and movies. As I said before, if we have Phase II on the template, then why don't we have Bennett's Star Trek VI: Starfleet Academy. It keeps things nice and clear if we just draw the line at productions that actually produced something. You don't have a finished product, you don't go on the list. AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New Style
I'm not that crazy about the new style of this template. I personally think the old one looked better. (No offense intended, Wookieepedian) I'm not the only one with an opinion, though, so I hesitate to do a reverse-edit unless there is a consensus. -- CALQL804:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since absolutely nothing has been confirmed about which era this film takes place, I've moved the link for XI under an "Upcoming films" heading. Feel free to argue that, or even change it back, this is just my two cents. --ZeromaruTC18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other section
I added an "Other" section with links to Books, Comics, Games, and Music, similar to the Star Wars template, because the template seems to be for the entire franchise. Eridani03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, seems that the Star Trek articles have one of those big side-bar navigation templates. Why is there a bottom-of-the-page one then? Eridani03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either the bare-bones or the expanded production staff setup is ideal. The expanded formatting is an eyesore, and breaking the staff down by "area of expertise" seems an unnecessary granularization, esp. for a franchise in which folks rarely stayed within their job title "bubble". Beyond that, though, are the actual entries: TV directors and executive producers but not their movie equivalents? Some writers from some series?
Hi, it doesn't bother me if we do what you suggest, I thought that it's better to have all the people who contributed to Star Trek listed or at least have a link to them. The problem i had with it before was it didn't inculde a all the movie directors and only had JJ Abrams and it had Gene Roddenberry at the end and no mention that he created Star Trek for people who are seeing Star Trek may not know that he created it. B64 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the partial protection of the template prevent the inclusion of Roddenberry's production company, Norway Corporation, or even that of Abrams's production company, Bad Robot? Leaving that information out does a great disservice.
--Parker Gabriel 05:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
what is the reason for removing the franchise line and separating the films, by separating the films, you are breaking story sequence in navbox VilnisrT|C08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna get into an edit war over this, but why is there a 'redundant' list of the series' at the top again? Also, why have the movies been put back into their "respective" series'? The whole point of separating them out onto their own line was to end an edit war about the most recent movie in particular (plus generations); also it added new and different link (not half a dozen repeated links, ... so they can be on top?). Redundant links are redundant, and get priority deleted here at Wiki central. Thoughts? Fixblor (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'redundant' list of the series, that's fine, but the film separation is pointless and breaking story sequence in navbox, i put them into their "respective" series', 'cuz they are part of these particular series, these movies are not a separate stories of Star Trek franchise, they are part of particular series. As about last "Star Trek" film and "Generations", i don't see a problem there as "Star Trek" film is about Enterprise team from original series just in alternative reality, that's why it's goes to "The Original Series" raw, as about "Generations", this story is about two captains from two different series, but as Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean-Luc Picard have a main role, this film goes to "The Next Generation" raw. I don't care about "Franchise" raw, but movies must go back to their "respective" series. I will not start edit war and will not revert your last edit (right now), so you must put movies back. P.S. so large changes have to be discussed before you make them. Vilnisr (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yesh, that was the argument you've just rekindled. Story sequence is broken with the 2009 film. At the very least, it's questionable being listed as TOS. So, rather than arguing in perpetuity, the alternate method of listing (with film series as their own section) alleviates the arguments. Your now added argument of story sequence is rest upon a slightly flawed premise (that the movies are attached to the corresponding TV series exclusively), when there are crossovers amongst the series and the movies which blur the lines between them. If the title had been "Star Trek: The Next Generation: Generations" then maybe the exclusivity of placing it within the TNG subsection would be resolutely valid. However, the 2009 film throws even that methodology out the airlock. see Reboot. A reboot is not the ORIGINAL series. Fixblor (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
even if "Star Trek" film would not be a part of TOS (subject for discuss), the rest of films belongs to particular series, the films was made after the series was canceled and they continue the story from these series, basicly they are part of series, by separating them you make them independent and that's not true! Vilnisr (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs - The current format is fine from an encyclopedic standpoint. But there are a few more details that are getting glossed over if the entire list is to be compiled into a strictly television medium based story arc. @ Vilnisr - Consider the integrity of a list of that nature before setting-in that course. What about all the crossovers? Bones, Scotty and Spock all made guest appearances on TNG. DS9 was the bridge between TNG and Voyager. This is a template on an encyclopedia. Compromises get made every minute. You're right, the movies are not entirely independent of the TV (hence them being on the same template). But movies are movies, and calling them TV is wrong. Now I'd like to point out, there is only cursory mention of the movies on both the TOS and TNG sites. They are separate, in part because while the TV was broadcast, the movies were distributed. Categorically different. Fixblor (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
crossovers? crossover mean that character have a guest role in the series or film, how does it fit in discussion at all. About distribution, yes movies wasn't made for television, but it's only about format and money making, not about story line. Story just move from tv format to movie format, thats all, you need to watch TOS to understand Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. As about: "(hence them being on the same template)", well this is frachise template, sure it will be on this template, don't see your point. Vilnisr (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. this template was made as alternative version for previous template, similar to one you trying to make right now, it was discussed and chosen as the best, and you don't even try to discuss your changes before you made them. You want compromises, i don't mind to remove franchise line, but, be so kind, return movies where they was. Vilnisr (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this isn't an outline of the canonical plot of ST. It's a collection of the most relevant ST links, organized to be best displayed on each of the related articles. Also, citation needed for that previous version of the template you mentioned. Fixblor (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Revision as of 10:21, 25 August 2007] appears to be the first iteration of the new format, and that doesn't offer the consensus you've indicated. I suggest you post a WP:RFC with a new section here, to get an up-to-date consensus from the community. NOTE: I'll repeat, my changes were to eliminate redundant links and alleviate an edit war by circumventing the argument of where to put reboot movie by moving all movies (with rationale) into their own column, [again]. Fixblor (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is you who are changing this template, it is you who need to make a discussion before change anything, old discussion page doesn't exist anymore, it was decided to use this version, want to change something - first discuss it, untill that move the movie links back Vilnisr (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I should've known the old discussion was deleted. Well, this line of discussion is astray of the original question (Should the films be listed on the TOP row?), which was answered by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (who agreed that there was nothing wrong with the current format ... check dates for version of template and time he posted). Please start a new section for your new discussion. Fixblor (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I believe Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the color of templates applies here. I don't really care how the template is arranged and I don't see any issues with the original template, This revision. The template is in chronological order, I don't see what the issues are. The films didn't pilot the series, many of them were made after the the series had finished. It would be unusual to put the films first, if you think that films were more important, I wouldn't mind the change. Changing templates shouldn't create WP:Drama, let's just discuss it quickly and get back to writing articles :). --Alpha Quadranttalk14:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
template was made in chronological order and as movies continue the story from particular series and, basicly, are part of these series, links was added in the same row, i don't see any reason to put movies in separate row, i think it's illogical and weird, there never was such thing as "film series" Vilnisr (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel my question has been resolved, and I will not be moving the film series row to the top of the template, thank you all for your input. Fixblor (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The title "Alternate Reality" seems inconsistant with the other parts of the Star Trek franchise. Specifically in that "Alternate Reality" is an in-universe description. The Original Series is not titled 'Original Timeline: Captain Kirk Era'. It is titled The Original Series. Same is true of the The Animated Series, The Next Generation, etc. Shouldn't WP:COMMONNAME apply here? Most refer to 'Star Trek' (2009) as a reboot. That is consistant with how the other parts of the Star Trek franchise are titled as well as with other franchises on Wikipedia such as Planet of the Apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_of_the_Apes. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to hear from more editors on this. Various terms have been used to describe the new films. Proposal is to be consistant and use the term 'Reboot' throughout based on WP:COMMONNAME. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reboot, so "Alternate Reality" is more correct. "COMMONNAME" is for article titles, not for how we refer to things. Punctuation, spelling, etc. are all adjusted to be accurate, not to reflect common usage. So, the section should read "alternate reality" because that's what it is. It is not a reboot, no matter how many people call it that. Rhindle The Red (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was resolved 2 years ago. The new films are a reboot. While done in a slightly different way from other reboots, they are still a reboot. That is what they are refered to as almost universally. The term "Alternate Reality" is only used by a small group of hardcore trekkies and is not consistant with how other parts of the Star Trek are identified thus would be confusing to most. And since the section headings are titles WP:COMMONNAME does apply. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still calling it a "reboot", huh? How about "Kelvin timeline", since that's how CBS and all licensed media refers to it (because it is a separate timeline within the canon, not a reboot, which would be unrelated to the Prime universe)? [1][2]Rhindle The Red (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, I can't find Paramount using the term, but CBS does and, as I pointed out, Star Trek's official website calls it the Kelvin Timeline and it's used on at least one officially licensed book (in the link) and by the online game (other link). It's known to anyone who knows Star Trek, not just hardcore fans. It may have started as cruft, but it's official now. Paramount makes the films, but CBS controls pretty much everything else, including canonical status. They call it the Kelvin Timeline. Wikipedia should follow suit. (And it's a more accurate description, anyway.) Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight the official website does not use the term "Kelvin Timeline". Any search of that site of the term only shows press releases regarding the book and online game. And since Paramount produces the films, it is in no way 'official'. Plus it is really only known by hardcore fans. I know many people who are fans of Star Trek who never heard the term until I mentioned it to them. The Star Trek (film series) page lists the new movies as "Reboot (Kelvin Timeline) films", something similar can be done here if everyone is willing to compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reboot (Kelvin timeline) works as a subsection title, if it's not Kelvin timeline alone (so is this section in canon incorrect?). I'd remove 'films' as that is self-explanatory from the full section header. Quote marks probably not needed around "Reboot", and 'Kelvin' probably should be italicized, as the name of a ship. Good idea, at least until a common canon name is settled. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original structure was based on the different parts of the franchise (the original series, the next generation, etc.). While the new structure is simpler, it may be harder for non-hardcore trekies to navigate. How much space something takes up should not be a concern, providing a structure that helps users find what they are looking for without confusion should be. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could subdivide the films section like this:
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Studios do not belong here
Please could editors stop adding studios involved in the production of the show to this navbox. The studios are not intrinsically linked to the product and are too tangential for inclusion. Imagine the number of navboxes that would be on the studio's page if we started including studios in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lucille Ball, Desilu, Paramount, these are names directly responsible for creating Star Trek along with Roddenberry, for keeping it on the air at a time when it was both struggling to be on the air, and continued the series over objections to the point that Ball had to sell Desilu as it sank due to her insistence that Star Trek had to survive and would become a major franchise. Unlike other shows, Star Trek has a fifty-year history which is tied directly to a few studios and to the beginning trust in the series by Lucille Ball. I of course don't advocate studios being on all television show templates, yet this one can be called a clear exception due to its history. Can someone with the project put a notice about this discussion at the Project page? Thanks. Randy Kryn14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were behind the production, but they do not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Sure, they belong on an infobox, but the ties are not close enough for inclusion here, and there's no case for exception here as giving Star Trek a higher standing than any other show would fall foul of WP:UNDUE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I thanked the edit because the list does seem bloated, I have no idea what Lucille Ball has to do with Star Trek out side of being connected to Desilu. Iirc (I have not checked any sources) Desilu was the home of Star trek (or was it Paramount ?) but, outside of one or two production studios any other are just promoters and not involved with creating the series and should not be listed. Mlpearc (open channel)14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rob is correct, this seems like a similar situation to linking writers from film/TV navboxes - yes, they created the content, but we can't list everything every writer has ever written in both prose, table, and navbox form in a single page. Navboxes should be for more specific articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@FreeRogue: Per the sources at Star Trek: Short Treks, this was ordered as its own series separate from Discovery just like the Picard show or Lower Decks or any of the other new series. You may think it is too small or too closely related to Discovery for you to call it its own thing, and that is fine, but for the purposes of Wikipedia we need to go off what the sources tell us. Looking at some of the sources specifically, Deadline and THR both announced the series as being its own spinoff, and here Kurtzman confirmed that it can tie-in with any of the new shows, not just Discovery. This is why we have a separate article for the series, and not just listed the shorts at List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it is linked only to Discovery with 4 to 6 short episodes. It is too short to consider it as full sized series like the rest in this section. Yes it is a spin-off that is why it is mentioned here so as After Trek.If You don't like it rebuild a template and separate such "shows" into subsection. – FreeRogue···Talk···06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Short Treks can not be considered as separate series as episodes not even connected and if it will contain shorts from other shows, it will be even harder to consider Short Treks as separate series. In best case it is a support show. p.s. Spin-off (media), a new media product derived from an existing product or franchise.– VilnisrT | C07:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are both talking about your feelings while I have provided sources. Do you have any policy-backed argument for reverting me or are you just being disruptive? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About facts: In articles is nothing said about Short Treks as stand alone full size series. First: Short Treks "serving as an opportunity for deeper storytelling and exploration of key characters and themes that fit into Star Trek: Discovery"; Second: Spin-off (media), a new media product derived from an existing product or franchise.– VilnisrT | C09:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was ordered as its own spin-off series. "deeper storytelling and exploration of key" Discovery elements is what it is about, but that is irrelevant because we are talking about the real world production of it. And if you think any spin-off should be considered a sub part of the original, then all of the series listed here should be listed under the original since they are all spin-offs from that show. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all:I don't see its own spin-off series. From your link [3]: "The first four Star Trek: Short Treks episodes were used as lead-ins to the second season of Star Trek: Discovery." That is one of the reasons why it is located under Star Trek: Discovery section.
Second: You have said is that Short Treks is a spin-off and of course it is, but it doesn't make it a full size stand alone, and most important, independent and self-sufficient series! It was made for "serving as an opportunity for deeper storytelling and exploration of key characters and themes".
As about spin-off (again) [citation from wikipedia]: "Spin-off (media), a new media product derived from an existing product or franchise."
A Short Trek has been released concerning two girls watching Mars attacked. This is a Picard tie-in, not Discovery. This bolsters the argument that it is its own thing.StarHOG (Talk) 23:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under documentaries, could you add in "What We Left Behind", the documentary about Deep Space Nine? There is not a separate Wikipedia page on it, but it is discussed at: Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine#What_We_Left_Behind Geoffrey1158 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The portals {{Portal-inline|Television}} and {{Portal-inline|Speculative fiction}} added in this edit should be removed as they are general portals and are not specific to the subject of the navbox. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no justification for its inclusion. Portals should only be included if they match the topic. Navboxes should not be used to populate tangential non-specific portals in this way. The only portal that would remotely be appropriate would be Portal:Star Trek if it existed. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and portal:Star Trek existed, if memory serves, but was recently lost in the deletionists paradise of portal deletions. And thanks, looking at the coding helps me with an edit I was wondering how to do a couple a few days ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems more confusing. Fine as is, although I would actually include the full names (with Star Trek attached) if the numeral is added. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Introduces awkward spacing and punctuation and, for those not versed in Roman numerals, weirdo arbitrary characters. The numerical sequence of the films is clear enough simply from their listing. I might endorse a proposal to parenthetically add each film's release year (I did a quick mockup and it's non-ugly) -- however, I haven't done the necessary dive into relevant MOSes for e.g. film projects to informedly propose it. --EEMIV (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it wouldn't be appropriate to drop a I in front of TMP, since it was never (re)released branded as Star Trek I: The Motion Picture. --EEMIV (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was prompted by the "unmade projects" entry Star Trek 4. People over a certain age may associate "Star Trek 4" with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Adding a roman numeral makes it clear that "the 4th movie" is not the same as "Star Trek 4."
Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
