This is hardly a list of Star Trek episodes. it really just a list of the first episode, or the first of each season. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.76.235.136 (
talk) 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Naming conventions poll
There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --
Elonka 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Articles should be moved to remove unneeded disambiguation. This is in accordance with the guidelines
WP:TV-NC and
WP:D. Articles which do not need to be disambiguated shouldn't be disambiguated.
Important note: - This Request Move includes just one episode article from each of the six Star Trek seasons. There are many more Star Trek Episode articles which are unnessasarily disambiguated. If this Request Move concludes with support for moving these articles, then i will be going through all the Star Trek Episode articles and moving all the articles where there is unneeded disambiguation.
I felt there's no reason to include every episode article into this Request Move - it is very unlikely that someone will support/oppose the
Beyond the Farthest Star (TAS episode) →
Beyond the Farthest Star move but then not support/oppose the
One of Our Planets is Missing (TAS episode) →
One of Our Planets is Missing move. Having dozens of moves listed in this Request Move (or having dozens of Request moves) is unneeded beauracracy and mess, and i want this closed ASAP (i.e. as soon as the 5 days are up and a consensus is reached here). --
`/aksha 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Survey
Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Survey - Support votes
Support, of course, as the nominator. --
`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support per nom,
WP:TV-NC, and the three month discussion on the topic. --
Ned Scott 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, per
WP:DAB and
WP:TV-NC. Preemptive disambiguation continues to be a bad idea, and the arguments in favor of this example (viz. "context", "consistency", "precedent" and "WikiProject ownership") are all fatally flawed. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs) 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all: Per nom. —
Wknight94 (
talk) 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all. Exceptions are perfectly fine if supported by solid reasoning. No acceptable reasoning has been advanced to justify one here. – Anþony talk 08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all per
WP:DAB, and due to the extreme likelihood of these articles being accessed only through their context with Star Trek in general, and the individual series in particular. --
BlueSquadronRaven 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Two days into this move request, an outside observer might be tempted to close the request early under
WP:SNOW, and understandably so (at this writing, the count is 11 support, 0 oppose). However, since this is related to
a current ArbCom case, and since the normal 5-day period overlaps with Christmas, when many editors will not be checking Wikipedia very often, I suggest that even though it seems obvious which way this will go, potential closing admins leave the request open for a few days extra. We don't want anyone complaining that this move was done while the backs of less frequent editors were turned, and a few days' wait won't hurt anyone. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs) 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Seconded. A few extra days won't hurt, and rushing it might be causing more trouble then it's worth.
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs •
WikiProject Television) 11:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Please note the fact that this move did not require administrator assistance. You didn't have to list this at
WP:RM. As it states at the top of the page:
Before you begin, please note that requested moves are only for moving articles, and sometimes templates. It is not the place for the following:
Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves
Moves of this nature can be accomplished by any logged-in user whose registration was more than 4 days ago. Use the [move] tab located at the top of every page. See
Help:Moving a page.
Doing this would have saved me a few minutes of my time that I could have spent helping other users on Wikipedia. Please read instructions before using any one of Wikipedia's request pages. Thank you very much for your future cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at
my talk page.
Ian Manka 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
However, I should note that I do approve of the efforts made to have a straw poll to gauge consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at
my talk page.
Ian Manka 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, we know, and normally we would have just done the moves ourselves. Unfortunately this otherwise trivial matter has generated a three month debate and now an
arbcom case. Had it not been for that, we would have just dived into the page moves. --
Ned Scott 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah. The only reason i put them through Request Moves was because a certain editor has decided these kind of moves where causing some kind of wikipedia-wide mass disruption. I figured a Request Move would make it 'official'. But i guess even to the outside neutral observer, these moves are not contraversial. --
`/aksha 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Best to wait for further agreement. You can perform the minor clean-up, but please do not copy-paste incomplete content from my sandbox that I have not yet prepared for entry into the mainspace. -- /
Alex/
21 11:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
On your own, friend. Thanks.
Rdzogschen (
talk) 12:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I had completed the showrunner column and further changes, but I was informed I was no longer editing the current version. Such rapid reversions are disheartening and rather discouraging.
Wanderer0 (
talk) 12:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
That's nice. Thanks. Such copy-pasting from someone else's sandbox without any form of attribution is also disheartening and rather discouraging.
This discussion is only an expression of a suggestion, in the face of the
rejection of the PROD. If you agree to it, say so to make any form of consensus clear. If you disagree, do the same. Such bold edits should have a consensus first. -- /
Alex/
21 12:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Since when do
WP:BOLD edits require consensus? Make your "suggested" edits and or move the articles.
Fostrdv (
talk) 13:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
When they constitute reconstructing a major part of a 15-year old article (if not the entire article), and when it was suggested directly in the rejected PROD. -- /
Alex/
21 13:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The reason for rejecting your PROD was silly--article is so many years old… Pfft! Wiki would never change if that was the sole reason for retaining articles or reverting bold edits. Make your changes. I'm certain @
Rdzogschen and @
Wanderer0 agree with what you're proposing, so *do I. So if you need permission to proceed, that's four of the roughly seven named editors who've made significant contributions to Trek articles in the previous six months. So!
BE BOLD!
Fostrdv (
talk) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't matter if it was silly. It was rejected, simple as that. Three editors isn't a consensus. I'll wait to see if there's any rejection of the idea, and if there isn't, then I'll go ahead. After all, there's
WP:NORUSH. -- /
Alex/
21 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I've never visited this article & would never think to look for it. Merge/redirect to the list of TV series is fine with me.
UpdateNerd (
talk) 01:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Please be aware that pinging specific editors during a merge discussion may be considered
canvassing. -- /
Alex/
21 05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
So my question is what happens to the content about the films? There was originally a
List of Star Trek films but that got turned into an article, turned into a list again, back into an article, and smushed into the combined list at some point.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 14:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The films should have their own list, yes.
Rdzogschen (
talk) 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay then that makes the most sense. I don't understand why they merged completely different mediums made by different companies into the same list in the first place.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Paramount Television, and later CBS Television Studios (Paramount's successor), have owned Trek without interruption since 1967. Making a distinction as to who is producing the films currently doesn't make sense, since Bad Robot is doing so under license from CBS. I do not recall when that! list was split or merged, or why. However, Alex's contention is this! list (re:
List of Star Trek episodes) should be changed.
Wanderer0 (
talk) 17:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
David Fuchs, you're very late to the party, they already did, almost two months ago.
[1][2] -- /
Alex/
21 22:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry I was unclear, I meant in terms of killing this Lists page and splitting the movies off from the shows.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I highly disagree with killing this Lists page. It is, after all, an article for lists of Star Trek episodes, and thus serves its purpose. If you want to separate the films articles,
WP:BEBOLD. -- /
Alex/
21 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Include: Years and Episode Count?
What would people think about including years and/or episode count here (SD:WAY 1970-1978, 41 episodes)? It makes it much easier to track which series are ongoing and which are concluded without having to click through to specific series pages. I feel like this and similar pages (
Lists of Star Trek episodes) should maybe be tables.
71.175.177.174 (
talk) 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
There are overview details for all the series at
List of Star Trek television series. We shouldn't expand the scope of this article without addressing the concerns that led to the current version (per the
#Proposed changes section above). -
adamstom97 (
talk) 11:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply