Talk:Lists of Star Trek episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't Qualify[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

The result of the debate was move all. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) The Man Trap (TOS episode) → The Man Trap[reply]
One of Our Planets is Missing (TAS episode) → One of Our Planets is Missing
Q-Less (DS9 episode) → Q-Less
The 37s (Voyager episode) → The 37s
The Andorian Incident (Enterprise episode) → The Andorian Incident
Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode) → Encounter at Farpoint

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[edit]

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[edit]

  1. Support, of course, as the nominator. --`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support per nom, WP:TV-NC, and the three month discussion on the topic. -- Ned Scott 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per WP:DAB, for the same reason that we name the article Alanis Morissette rather than Alanis Morissette (Canadian singer). >Radiant< 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. Support all: Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. --Serge 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. Jay32183 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per WP:TV-NC YAY!!!! Nohat 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Support all, per guidelines mentioned, and also per my offended sense of style seeing "Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)" and "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS episode)" and "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places (DS9 episode)". Morwen - Talk 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support all, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. --Brian Olsen 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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]
Further discussion on this matter is available at User talk:IanManka#Star Trek episode page moves. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where No One Has Moved Before[edit]

WP:RM Star trek episode Where No One Has Gone Before. See Talk:Where No One Has Gone Before#Requested move. Simply south 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

total episode[edit]

I added total nr of episodes as i think that's information people might look for. I don't think counts as Wikipedia:No original research as per Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations DoctorHver (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes[edit]

I propose multiple changes for this article, which is not strictly a deletion of the article, but a deletion of the content as it exists currently.

This article contains almost nothing new that is not already in every existing linked article; that is, it's an overall overview table and then separate overview tables for each series. That's it. Feature length episodes are trivia. Everything here can be merged into List of Star Trek films and television series, by creating a more detailed overview at that article (as can be seen at User:Alex 21/sandbox2, and is already standard practice, as can be seen at Arrowverse, The Walking Dead (franchise), List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, etc), making the separate overviews here redundant.

This article should then be moved to Lists of Star Trek episodes, and changed to the same format as Lists of Arrowverse episodes, providing links to the respective List of Episodes, instead of having them linked as such in the overview table (e.g. The Next Generation in the overview table links to List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, not Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is what a casual reader would expect). -- /Alex/21 10:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted the suggested table into List of Star Trek films and television series with some minor clean-up. My suggestion is to condense and move this article to Lists of Star Trek episodes. Rdzogschen (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2019 (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]
Hey @UpdateNerd! What do you think? Fostrdv (talk) 13:54, 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]
UpdateNerd is did most of the work splitting List of Star Trek films and television series. Fostrdv (talk) 09:02, 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 Fuchs talk 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 Fuchs talk 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]
So... are changes going to be occurring? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:02, 21 November 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 Fuchs talk 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?[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_Star_Trek_episodes&oldid=1217029843"