talk:Star Trek

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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=1252639961&oldid=1252561678]. 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)

{{od}}

What are everyone's thoughts on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=1252681995&oldid=1252639961 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)

The terms Old Trek and New Trek are now in nearly universal use amongst Star Trek fans. The page should really mention them. Robert Brockway (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:We would need reliable sources to support that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

1) In the last sentence of the section Star Trek#Documentaries, please change

:a planned Voyager documentary

to

:a planned Voyager documentary

2) In the same section, please change

:Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1998), subtitled "A first hand acount - by the insiders"

to say

:"A first hand account - by the insiders"

or, if appropriate,

:"A First Hand Account by the Insiders"

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...) Also in that section,

''Please change

:Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special (1991), is a 93-minute TV special

to

:Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special (1991) is a 93-minute TV special

or

:Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special (1991), a 93-minute TV special

''Please change

:Star Trek: A Captain's Log (1994), is a 43-minute TV special

to

:Star Trek: A Captain's Log (1994), a 43-minute TV special

or

:Star Trek: A Captain's Log (1994) is a 43-minute TV special

''Please change

:Journey's End: Saga of Star Trek Next Generation (1994), is a 44-minute TV special

to

:Journey's End: Saga of Star Trek Next Generation (1994) is a 44-minute TV special

or

:Journey's End: Saga of Star Trek Next Generation (1994), a 44-minute TV special

''Please change

:Star Trek: Voyager - Inside the New Adventure (1995), is a 45-minute TV special

to

:Star Trek: Voyager - Inside the New Adventure (1995), a 45-minute TV special

or

:Star Trek: Voyager - Inside the New Adventure (1995) is a 45-minute TV special

''Please change

:Trekkies 2 (2004), visits fans

to

:Trekkies 2 (2004) visits fans

or

:Trekkies 2 (2004), which visits fans

''Please change

:How William Shatner Changed the World (2005), is a two hour TV special

to

:How William Shatner Changed the World (2005), a two hour TV special

or

:How William Shatner Changed the World (2005) is a two hour TV special

''Please change

:Chaos on the Bridge: The Untold Story Behind Trek's Next Generation (2014), is a 59-minute TV special

to

:Chaos on the Bridge: The Untold Story Behind Trek's Next Generation (2014) is a 59-minute TV special

or

:Chaos on the Bridge: The Untold Story Behind Trek's Next Generation (2014), a 59-minute TV special

''Please change

:Building Star Trek (2016), is a 92-minute special

to

:Building Star Trek (2016), a 92-minute special

or

:Building Star Trek (2016) is a 92-minute special

''Please change

:The Roddenberry Vault (2016), is a Blu-ray release

to

:The Roddenberry Vault (2016) is a Blu-ray release

or

:The Roddenberry Vault (2016), a Blu-ray release

''Please change

:What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (2019), is a two-hour special

to

:What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (2019), a two-hour special

or

:What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (2019) is a two-hour special

Thank you. Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

If anyone has the time or interest, I would love to take Spore drive that I created to GA and then FA status. I was expecting when I began to have enough material for a small article, and was blown away but the scope of what I found (and I still have an entire book of academic essays on DISCO to get through).

If interested:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Spore drive/archive1

Thanks! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)