Talk:Star Trek

Movies timelines

Movies timeline must be separated (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&oldid=1232725495#Films%7CFilms). There are two timeline and they are totally messed up. Lado85 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already divide the films based on relevant real-world groupings and denote the alternate timeline in the heading and in prose. Why do you think we must add more headings to divide the list further? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you have "Television films" after reboot section and it's unclear what timeline it belongs to. There is two seperate timelines and it should be separated in article and in Template:Star Trek too. Lado85 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are actually more timelines, and it is currently unclear what timeline the next film will be set in. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oficially there are two timelines:

1. Tv show and related to them movies (Section 31 is direct spin-off of Discovery).

2. Kelvine timeline. Lado85 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing dispute

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: [1]. 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)

What are everyone's thoughts on 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)

Old Trek and New Trek

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)

edit requests

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)