Talk:Star Trek (2009 film)

Available reference

Hey, all -- I checked out Star Trek: The Art of the Film to fill some gaps at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). I'll have it for a couple more weeks, and if there's any particular area of interest or need for this article (or some other you eyeball) you'd like me to check for insight/detail, drop a message here or on my talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"When Kirk Met Spock" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When Kirk Met Spock. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

other music

There is other music used in the film besides the original score, but I can't seem to find what other songs were used. Obviously one song from"The Beastie Boys', there there are a couple others as well that I can't find listen anywhere. A lot of it is just brief use. 96.31.177.151 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs fixing

The current version of this article's "Plot" section contains this phrase:

Spock maroons Kirk on Delta Vega after he attempts mutiny

However, it isn't explained exactly why Spock attempts mutiny. Can a few words be added to this paragraph so it's clear why Spock attempts mutiny? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's Kirk, not Spock that attempts mutiny when he disobeys Spock's orders. You're reading the sentence incorrectly. oknazevad (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Star Trek (film) will become a redirect to List of Star Trek films; a discussion can be held at WP:RFD to change that redirect's destination. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Star Trek (film) → Star Trek (2009 film) – Dab from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. See WT:NCF#Does this apply to subtitles? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support also ambiguous with Star Trek in film, and the Star Trek film series -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Makes sense to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Most Star Trek films are referred to by their subtitles pretty frequently by fans and casual commentators alike, but this one, being the sole Star Trek film without a subtitle is often referred to by its date or as "the reboot movie", which would not work as a disambiguator for many reasons. So including the date in the parenthetical here makes it easier to find for casuals searching in the search bar. And as the IP editor notes, the current, more ambiguous title could be redirected to the List of Star Trek films article with little loss of meaning. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support and would also add that after the move Star Trek (film) should point to List of Star Trek films. --Masem (t) 13:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support This just makes sense. Much more clear which film we're discussing. I agree with Masem about leaving a redirect to List of Star Trek films in the old name's place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support the 2009 one has 35,253 views but Star Trek: The Motion Picture has 22,478[[1]] which isn't enough for a PADB and subtitles are often omitted, anyway the subtitle is shown in much smaller text than "Star Trek" in the film's image. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Logical, Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Touché :) SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as more disambiguation than necessary. Let me explain!

1. We disambiguate to sort out article titles. If both the 1979 film and the 2009 film were strictly called Star Trek, that is what their pre-disambiguation article titles would be, and they can't both be Star Trek (film). Then they would be Star Trek (1979 film) and Star Trek (2009 film), respectively -- a second layer of disambiguation. However, since we are committed to calling the 1979 film's article title by the full title, that means there is only one film named just Star Trek (in the universe of officially-established article titles, not alternative ones and shorthand ones), so a second layer of disambiguation is not necessary. So the 2009 film can be at Star Trek (film).
2. We should not assume that the majority of readers will type disambiguation terms as part of the search process (even if we as expert readers and editors do). If readers type something like star trek the motion picture or star trek motion picture, they'll find the 1979 film right away. If they type star trek film, we don't know what they mean, so we can redirect them to a disambiguation page or a list of Star Trek films. Within that, we can list the 1979 film and the 2009 film.
3. On top of using a disambiguation page, we have hatnotes to clear up the rare instances of some readers trying to be laser-precise and typing Star Trek (film) in search of the 1979 film, as well as short descriptions that will pop up in Wikipedia's search engine, as well as other search engines showing the first sentence of either article with their the release year.
4. We have a consensus-tested setup for the literally-indistinguishable Ocean's 11 and Ocean's Eleven. In that phonetically identical situation, readers are more likely to get mixed up, and hatnotes will guide them. If that is done for that barest difference, why not just do that here for the less likely mix-ups instead of adding another layer of disambiguation?
5. Lastly, this setup of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek (film) has existed for 15 years without issue. So making this change accomplishes nothing. This wasn't a pair of obscure articles that had to be fixed. Sure, consensus can change, but it should change out of necessity. Do we truly have that here?

I ask other editors to consider these points. Pinging Pppery, 65.92.247.66, SonOfThornhill, Oknazevad, Masem, HandThatFeeds, Crouch, Swale, Randy Kryn. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging was excessive and unwanted. But since I'm here:

1. is not a sensible argument. Just appending (film) does not disambiguate well enough between two films.

2. is a perpetual argument about how disambiguation works, we're not going to solve it here.

3. is just a repeat of 2 with a different perspective, the hatnote/disambiguation argument is age-old and not going to be solved here.

4. is more of the same.

5. "this accomplishes nothing" does not stand up to the previous arguments. Because something has existed in its current state for a long time does not mean a change is useless, it just means no one bothered before now.

So your argument boils down to two points: perennial complaints about how Wikipedia's disambiguation process works, which we can't solve in this one move discussion; and "it's been this way for a long time, change is useless" which is not a helpful argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Point 2 is exactly why I and others have suggested that after this move, "Star Trek (film)" should point to the list of ST films, to aid in that navigation. It is quite possible that a reader may be searching for any ST film (not just the 1979 or 2009, perhaps they forgot the subtitles) and getting them to the disambiguation page faster is the better reason. — Masem (t) 12:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to state that I considered it would be over-disambiguation and my initial reaction would be to oppose, but when I thought about it, it just makes sense based on my reasoning above. Guidelines are just that, guidelines, and deviating from them when doing such improves that encyclopedia is actual policy (IAR), so I don't care if it's not exactly guideline compliant. It makes the article title more immediately clear and easier to find. It's an improvement. Period

Secondly, don't ping prior commenters with a rebuttal. That's not how RMs work. 12:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Still Support SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Erik:

1. Yes we use disambiguation to sort out titles, both are likely called just "Star Trek" at least sometimes. The fact that the 1979 one has a subtitle and is the most common term for it or at least a WP:NATURAL disambiguator and the 2009 one doesn't have such a subtitle doesn't take away the need to disambiguate completely. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for similar examples. As I've said subtitles are commonly omitted so its likely to many people both are called "Star Trek", for example Wikipedia has a subtitle Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia but that doesn't mean its not called just "Wikipedia". Some subtitles are more common than others but most are at least sometimes called without them.
2. Regardless of how people get to articles the qualifiers should generally be complete.
3. Yes but it would be more helpful to have the title qualified to.
4. Those titles are similar but don't include partial disambiguation or subtitles. When it comes down to Talk:Clerks (film)#Requested move 14 July 2020 I agree the year isn't needed to distinguish from the likes of Clerks II but this is very different.
5. The fact the problem hadn't been fixed doesn't mean we should just leave it. If all errors were left just because no one else fixed them for some time we'd have lots of them here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks to all for replying. I pinged supporting editors in an effort to change the consensus since this is supposed to be a discussion. I wanted to challenge your stances, now you've articulated them more fully. (If there is a guideline discouraging such notifications, please point me to it.) I think oknazevad makes the best point, that it's technically not guideline-compliant, but it's not a big deal. My general impression is that editors care so much about how article titles "look" (e.g., the effort to look for a primary parenthetically-disambiguated topic within a set of parenthetically-disambiguated topics). It just happens that disambiguating films by year is the most simple approach since there is rarely the same film title in a given year and anything else would be more wordy. But we don't worry when the years are right next to each other, like Foo (2023 film) and Foo (2024 film), despite the high likelihood of readers not remembering exactly when their sought-for film came out, because all we want to do is sort because we have to. Sorting here, when we don't actually have to, is what I took issue with. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tidy up

This recent move has broken over 500 links, some more obvious than others. Made some headway but would be good to fix all links 2A0A:EF40:277:FF01:B090:1457:CF1B:6603 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been looking at this page after another IP address changed from the previous name to the current page article. It wouldn't make sense to direct people to the general list of Star Trek films page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)