Talk:Star Trek

Redundant list of TV shows

Do we still need a section for all the series when there is a whole article that already does that at List of Star Trek television series? Feels like this is just leftover from before that article was created and was never cleaned-up. I propose we remove those sections and just have the overview table like we do for the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to be swayed by other editors, but it does seem a bit redundant, and creates more work when updates are needed. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I can get behind this. Perhaps we can compress these into three major sections:

• Broadcast series TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT
• Streaming: DIS, PIC, SNW, Academy
• Animated: TAS, Lower Decks, Prodigy

Oldag07 (talk)

That would seem to draw a false distinction between the animated shows and the other two categories (especially since Lower Decks at least is a streaming show as well)? DonIago (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have suggested some alternate ideas for splitting up the list of TV shows at Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would think the most logical divide would be Animated and Live Action. Isn't that the standard division in most media articles? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel that would be more arbitrary than some of the other suggestions, the three animated shows don't have much to do with one another. I think broadcast and streaming would make more sense because it keeps all the Kurtzman-era shows together. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant sections but did not split the TV shows into sections yet, waiting for clearer consensus on the best direction for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Broadcast and streaming sounds fine to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have moved this part of the discussion to Talk:List of Star Trek television series#Splitting up the list of series. I think it is better to keep it one place. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as there's are the same details and a similar layout on the List of Star Trek television series article, this doesn't seem controversial.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice, the page is 122,190 bytes as of this edit. This article hasn't been this slim since 3 September 2019‎. That is the year of discovery's first season. This is with a bunch of new content. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move the List of Star Trek episodes into the List of Star Trek lists

A proposal has been made to move the List of Star Trek episodes page into the List of Star Trek lists. Discussion Oldag07 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Merged Oldag07 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Movies timelines

Movies timeline must be separated (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=1232725495#Films%7CFilms). There are two timeline and they are totally messed up. Lado85 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already divide the films based on relevant real-world groupings and denote the alternate timeline in the heading and in prose. Why do you think we must add more headings to divide the list further? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you have "Television films" after reboot section and it's unclear what timeline it belongs to. There is two seperate timelines and it should be separated in article and in Template:Star Trek too. Lado85 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are actually more timelines, and it is currently unclear what timeline the next film will be set in. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oficially there are two timelines:

1. Tv show and related to them movies (Section 31 is direct spin-off of Discovery).

2. Kelvine timeline. Lado85 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing dispute

I'm interested in other people's perspectives on the order of prequel and sequel, as at least one person thinks it should be this way: [1]. Does anyone else agree with me? I don't want to make this some huge thing, but I do think my argument makes sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the wording is very confusing, but logic dictates that three sequel series and a prequel precedes the list that follows as it describes it in that order. Again, highly confusing, but unless the description and the list are both rewritten, you can see how it doesn't work. In other words, the order of production is listed, the three sequel series (TNG, DS9, VOY), followed by the prequel (ENT). Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that to someone unfamiliar with the chronological order of production, listing the prequel last might give the false impression that TNG is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think it's just one of those things, like attorneys and physicians speaking Latin combined with legal and medical jargon. Fandom in general keeps it a bit confusing to keep the outsiders out and the insiders in. It's like that in every subculture, professional or amateur. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we're Wikipedia, and a lot of our readers might be unfamiliar with certain aspects of Star Trek, or any other in-universe fictional element in any other fictional series. There's a good chance someone is reading this page because someone mentioned Star Trek and they're like "what's that?". I once had that response when I casually mentioned Tetris to man in his forties, who didn't quite grasp the concept, even if he knew that video games exist. What's obvious to those in a fandom isn't always obvious to those outside it, even it's a very well known thing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone is unfamiliar with Star Trek and they read the updated version of the sentence (i.e. "a prequel and three sequel series: TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT") they are going to think that TNG is a prequel and DS9, VOY, and ENT are three sequels. Your change was doing the opposite of what you were hoping for. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You think so, but I don't, even if I understand how you came to that conclusion. It's normal for people to say a "prequel and sequels", to the extent that it's a bit jarring when it's the other way around that people will think it's a deliberate choice (the way things are now, where it states sequels and prequel: TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT). It's not the biggest deal in the world, but I do think it's a perspective worth considering. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a deliberate choice, because it is the correct order: "three sequel series and a prequel: TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT". To say it the other way around is misleading. If you genuinely think people are going to get confused then why not split up the sentence? "three sequel series: TNG, DS9, and VOY. A prequel series was also made, ENT..." - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with adamstom97: "3 sequels and a prequel" is the clearer thing to say because that's both the order they occurred in and the order they're listed in. AJD (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "sequel/prequel" clause should be in the order that the series themselves are listed. Another option, though I don't have suggested wording at this time, would be to do away with the "sequel/prequel" wording, perhaps in favor of something like "four spin-off series", and leave it to the descriptions of each series to convey whether they're prequels or sequels. DonIago (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing it to spinoff series. You're right that the descriptions of the series themselves already convey when they happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also okay with the other proposed idea of just splitting it off into separate sentences. I realize this is a weird small thing to care about but I do think we should reduce ambiguity when we can. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What are everyone's thoughts on this? I really do appreciate the perspectives of everyone that's commented here. I've come around to thinking that maybe the original phrasing wasn't as confusing as I thought it was. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to it (then again, I kind of suggested it :p ). DonIago (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No objections from me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)