Talk:Star Trek: Phase II

Star Trek: Phase II has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 4, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Star Trek: Phase II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1977, it was announced that Star Trek would return to television with the series Phase II?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Phase II.

Wikipedia

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article 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 article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Star Trek 2.0 (2006)

What about this "Star Trek 2.0 on G4TV?ChuckDizzle 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek 2.0 is just syndication of The Original Series with a chat room, a stock market, "Trek Stats", and trivia shown on screen while watching. You can join the chat and the Spock Market by signing up on the G4 website, but as I said, it's just The Original Series with that stuff added in. Jondy 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts?

Where does the talk about scripts in this article come from? I thought the book only included two. 24.158.134.254 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! http://www.robsacc.nl/ottens/forgottentrek_phase2.html That website and the book is pretty much the main source of info in this article. 24.158.134.254 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, the book contains scripts for In Thy Image and The Child, but also includes two page plot summaries for all the other episodes listed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

Ah, it appears someone just pasted in the Memory Alpha version here. You can't do that. Memory Alpha is under a totally different licence (CC-SA-NC). Wikipedia is under GFDL. Morwen - Talk 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted this copyvio again for the second time, and have semiprotected. Morwen - Talk 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted it a further time. This is really utterly unacceptable, and users who revert back to a copyvio version despite warnings will be blocked.

In case there is any doubt that this version was taken from memory alpha :

an edit, 23 July 2006 made to the memory-alpha version which formatted their version so that each of the episodes had a separate paragraph.
an edit, 29 November 2006, which made the Wikipedia version be a copy of that memory-alpha version. this is copied and pasted from memory-alpha, no doubt about it.

Now, memory-alpha is under a different licence to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is GFDL, memory alpha is under CC-BY-NC, which prohibits commercial use. We cannot take things written on memory-alpha and add them to Wikipedia, much as we might want to, without violating the law. Morwen - Talk 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

Couldn't this image be used again to go with this article? DrWho42 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the article are written like an advertisement?

Please see: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_Phase_II&diff=260341042&oldid=260260570 --88.74.153.249 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a new book, maybe - but we're talking about a book that was published 11 years ago. I'm fine with it. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek II (2010)

Should we note somewhere that this series was going to be called "Star Trek II" (despite the confusion it would bring with the movie of the same name years later)? I believe "Phase II" was the fan-selected title to help distinguish the aborted TV series from "The Wrath of Khan." 207.238.52.162 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the scheduled real name of (what would have been) the second series. "Phase II" does sound odd, does it not? But my, given all the good ideas associated with this planned series, characters, actors, and writers, it is a pity it never "got off". Anyway, I presume us Trekkies can be pleased by the fact that these ideas were picked up by subsequent movies and Star Trek TNG.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reed as Will Decker?

The article says that the role of Will Decker, which eventually went to Stephen Collins in the Motion Picture, was uncast in the TV series. Yet YouTube has a clip from test footage showing Captain Kirk talking to a character played by Robert Reed. Does anyone know if the character he's playing in the clip is supposed to be Decker? And regardless of whether or not he's Decker, isn't the clip proof that Reed, an established actor, was involved with Phase II somehow, and should therefore be at least mentioned in the article? I can provide a link if anybody wants verification of the clip, but I didn't know if that would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.130.2 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clip in question is not Star Trek related, albeit the men wear shirts which resemble the uniforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdiAi6EyBJc It is a clip from the 1974 TV movie PRAY FOR THE WILDCATS which featured Shatner, Andy Griffith, and Robert Reed. MrNeutronSF (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section

It seems to me that each article related to pop culture topics like this gets into too much minutia about what came before and after and essentially repeats the same information from one article to another. This section typifies that. I suggest it simply sum up by saying something like, "In response to the unexpected surge of popularity of the original Star Trek TV series in syndication, and the growing and vocal fanbase in the 1970s, Star Trek owners Paramount pictures made several attempts to bring the show back in one form or another, including commissioning treatments and scripts for film projects including The God Thing and Planet of the Titans. In 1977, after all of these had been cancelled..." And the titles there could be linked to appropriate articles with all the repetition. MrNeutronSF (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes vs. References???

The use of citations in this article is odd and I don't know quite how to fix it. The cite's in the article text appear under Notes while the actual sources to which the notations refer are under References. The former are not "Notes" are they? MrNeutronSF (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FNNR for information about titles for sections on citations. What you've described is pretty common. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy: Fanfilm

There's a whole paragraph here about a fanfilm series which took some elements from the proposed series and produced one of its scripts. I would suggest this be minimized or removed entirely as it's quite trivial.MrNeutronSF (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Show Title is Incorrect

I don't quite know how to handle this, because the actual title of the proposed series was STAR TREK II. The title STAR TREK PHASE II appears to have been an early name which was quickly dropped. Surviving production documents testify to this, and the title detailed (with heavy citation) in Sherilyn Connelly's 2019 book The First Star Trek Movie. Should an article employ a briefly used working title in place of the actual title? I understand that since there is a motion picture titled STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN some disambiguation is desirable, but this is an encyclopedia. This article really ought to be titled something like STAR TREK II (TV SERIES ATTEMPT).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNeutronSF (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suitable reliable source? -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The series Bible/Writers Guide and Scripts all say Star Trek II on their covers. Examples: https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/REF.php https://picclick.com/Rare-Star-Trek-II-Writers-Directors-Guide-1977-113704324759.html

This person is correct. The show was called Star Trek II, not Phase II. It's a common mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence explains the differences between the two. The article is entitled "Star Trek: Phase II" because that is the most common name for the project, per the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. BilCat (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Entitled"

Why do so many Wiki page editors confuse the words "titled" and "entitled?" They're not synonyms. A TV show isn't entitled. It's titled. This is basic English, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect, as usual. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitle, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/entitle, https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/entitle, and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/entitle. BilCat (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Forgotten Trek

Hello everyone. I would like to submit my website Forgotten Trek as a source or external link. Other than Memory Alpha, which is already linked, Forgotten Trek is the most comprehensive source of information about Star Trek: Phase II online, and has been for 15 years. You can find all Phase II-related stories here. Of particular interest are "The Making of Star Trek: Phase II", "Designing the Phase II Enterprise" and "Designing the Twenty-Third Century Anew". I also have story outlines for four of the planned Phase II episodes: "In Thy Image", "Lord Bobby's Obsession", "The Prisoner", and "To Attain the All". Ottens (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode title

Which is correct, "Are Unheard Memories Sweet?" (2004-01-13 12:59:20 (UTC)) or "Are Unheard Melodies Sweet?" (2006-02-18 01:48:10 (UTC)) ? The book "STAR TREK History and Us" and the others says "Melodies" (google books, Internet Archive Search), but the book "STAR TREK PHASE II the lost series" says "Memories"(Internet Archive Search). By 健ちゃん (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) (typographical error correction By 健ちゃん (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]