Talk:List of Star Trek television series

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Star Trek High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force. Media franchises Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Star Trek (film series) page were merged into List of Star Trek television series on 23 March 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Star Trek: The Next Generation#High-definition and Blu-ray project|high definition on Blu-Ray]] The anchor (#High-definition and Blu-ray project) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This was an awfully short discussion. I wish there was more discussion over this. Oldag07 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't see something on WP:STARTREK. I am considering reversing the change, and reopening the discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reasons and get consensus first. Lots of people have been working on the current page. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against the move per say. I guess I wish you advertised the discussion more. Messaging the top 5-10 editors [1], on both pages, posting on the wikiproject is encouraged. At least try to get more than one person to support the move.

• Star Wars has a combined page like this. The MCU separates the two. so pages like this are hardly standard
• The original film page was over 70000 bytes. If anything, we probably should have split the movie page WP:SIZERULE
• This page is technically a list but I would argue lists, in general, should be shorter. WP:LISTPURP A feature film page is where we could expand things.
• I personally like the fact that this page was created. I think both pages can co-exist with each other. I guess I am not arguing against this page's existence, but to bring back the film franchise page.
• I guess I will do so when I get the time.... Which could be never.

Oldag07 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all of the points you just made; thanks for explaining in more detail. I argued for a similar solution of creating a "Star Wars in film" page separate from the list, but consensus determined that a "List" does not need to be interpreted so literally... based on the MCU article. Maybe there is some cause to reopen the conversation at some point, but I don't have the energy to jump on that train now either. My main argument against an article about Star Trek films being very necessary is that most of the films have less to do with one another than they do with the series they're based on.

However, there are specific pages for each Star Wars trilogy, which go into much more detail. I wouldn't be against similar separate articles for the individual series of Trek films. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this on your talk page. Again, I appreciate your hard work UpdateNerd. Further discussion can be found on WP:Lists Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#Star_Trek_and_Star_Wars_lists Oldag07 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to spin the pages out again, List of Star Trek episodes could be merged into the Star Trek TV page. I thought about adding more to the table I made, but the table here is far superior to what I have.... Oldag07 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sold on the article series, I do reject the wisdom of redirecting the page here. First off, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a list of films and television series combined, given you're combining two different mediums. Secondly, this isn't a list. It's short paragraphs linking to the actual relevant lists of episodes. This is structured more like an article than a list, and in that case this is colliding into redundancy with the main Star Trek article (at this point, I don't see the point of this article at all when there should be a List of Star Trek films and then the existing List of Star Trek: X episodes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be composed of primarily tables or minimal info to be considered a list (although I've argued the same point in the past). List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is a FA and includes sections of pure prose. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabling that tack for the moment, it's still fusing together TV and movies that have very little in common for being the same franchise, thanks to different rightsholders and creative teams, especially in the last few years. Why do we need a partially redundant list here for the TV when it's content that's found elsewhere? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:SANDWICH, I recommend removing the lead actor images. This was the solution applied to Star Trek. Rdzogschen (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actor images should remain; that way one article has the logos, this more detailed one the headshots. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks crowded there. Why MOS:SANDWICHING was written yes? One or the other is my vote, but I *lean toward* logos. If both HAVE to be there put them on the same side and shrink them so they fit within the bounds of that series info. Wanderer0 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You both realize this has been fought over on Star Trek at least once a year? Almost always lands on the side of series logos, until someone adds the lead actor images, and then WP:EDITWAR. :) Rdzogschen (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trekkies… Am I right? Whichever/whatever works, as long as the page reads easy, etc. EDITWARRHHGH!!! ;) Wanderer0 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Star Trek episodes#Proposed changes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Star Trek sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A caption of one of the article's images says that Avery Brooks played Captain Benjamin Sisko in Deep Space Nine, commander of the titular space station. This put a question in my mind which, I see, I'm not the first to puzzle about: Do Female Astronauts Wear Bras in Space? I feel the article should address this issue. EEng 00:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@50.35.56.25: The section header in the table cannot be titled "Future television series", as that creates two links to "Future television series"; the section header (first) and the actual prose section itself (second), causing the "Future television series" link in the Table of Contents to direct to the section header as the first linked entry instead of the correct prose section. Thus, the section header in the table requires a different title (and therefore link), per MOS:HEAD. -- /Alex/₂₁ 17:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigy and Strange New Worlds are in production. Section 31 is still on hold at best, and the other two series are speculative. I don't think the series in production should be categorized with series that haven't been officially announced. Oldag07 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, but have had to fix the edits made to the table that broke cell spans. Nor we do we need a "Current" header; that's made obvious by the Status column. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the merge of Lists of TV series and films (carried out by myself a year and a half ago), there have been so many developments, including two new TV shows (with many more debuting soon), and now at least one forthcoming film. Looking at the Table of Contents is headache-inducing, and I think it's a no-brainer to split the articles into two again as soon as possible. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the basic splits and link updated; further formatting will be required. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the image caption of Sonequa Martin-Green's image from "Commander Michael Burnham" to "Captain Michael Burnham", but it was changed back under the reasoning that she was "Introduced as Commander. Specifics can be listed in the series' article.". However, so was Benjamin Sisko, but the caption of the image discussing him still says "Captain". So, I'm not understanding the reasoning here. Thank you for your time. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for Burnham was wrong. The caption for Sisko was also wrong. Imagine describing the show to someone who has never watched it before. An encyclopedia article is supposed to do that only more formally. First introduce the characters as they were, then later provide more details. -- 109.79.160.13 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The info on the upcoming Dominion War series was reverted due to an "unreliable source" (Giant Freakin Robot). Why is this source considered unreliable? They have an editorial policy, and I can't see any bans on it in WP:RSP. Kidburla (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not on the list doesn't mean it's reliable. Giant Freakin Robot has a history of reporting unreliable rumor. I'd suggest finding a different source (surely there would be many if this information is accurate). Rcarter555 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of unreliable rumours reported by Giant Freakin Robot as being reliably sourced? I have found them to be reliable and I'm sure if they were unreliable there would be some discussion about it on Wikipedia such as on WP:RSP which is why I referred to that. Also, this was an exclusive story from GFR, hence why it hasn't been reported in other sources. Kidburla (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s just one of many articles I found listing the multiple stories from GFR that turned out to be untrue. https://aiptcomics.com/2022/01/02/aipt-rumor-source-rater/ Rcarter555 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Freakin' Robot is a clickbait site, nothing more. They have a long history of making things up, and pretty much no one views them as a website to be taken seriously from an editorial standpoint. They're much the same as ScreenRant, AICN, and other sites that post badly written nonsense without actual sources.

Is The Animated Celebration a separate series, or (as I stated in my edit summary) does "five all-new animated promotional spots" mean something more akin to a series' related webisodes? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way that this has been announced seems similar to Short Treks, with the indication being that they're an anthology. It's also worth noting that this "series" is prompting a tie-in comic book titled Star Trek: The Animated Celebration Presents The Scheimer Barrier which is titled and formatted as if TAC is it's parent series. But if they do indeed turn out to be websisodes then perhaps they could be included in a similar way to how The Star wars equivalent page displays it's webside shorts tied to series. Mitchy Power (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards the idea that this should just be included on the TAS page since they call them "promotional spots" rather than episodes or shorts. If they have a bit more substance to them and sources refer to them as more of a shorts series or something then perhaps they could be included here in a similar way to the Star Wars shorts, but for now I'm not sure that is appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this some more and this may not end up being appropriate, but I could see an argument for having Short Treks and The Animated Celebration in a separate group from the main Star Trek series similar to how the Marvel One-Shots are treated at Marvel Cinematic Universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I definitely see this point of view, the episodes of Short Treks still count towards the total episode count of the franchise as a whole. For example, when we added that Lower Decks 2x02 was counted as the 800th total Star Trek episode (which counted Short Treks), I expect the same will happen with Lower Decks 4x10 set to be the upcoming 900th total Star Trek episode. I think it depends on what form The Animated Celebration takes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have decided to hold off until it is confirmed what form The Animated Celebration takes I think we should remove it from this list for now. Any concerns with that? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest update. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, it certainly seems like these are mere promotional pieces, and not really something worthy of being listed as a separate series, although I suppose we should wait until they are released to fully judge. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are shorts, just in the way that Short Treks were shorts. This doesn't explain your mass removal of the recent news of the series' title and release, however. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the trailer for them described them as “promotional spots” as opposed to episodes of a series. My intention was only to remove (for now) listing them as a separate series, which I don’t believe is warranted. I did not intend to remove any news of their existence. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the series has premiered, I've gone ahead and added it to the relevant articles (though made separate "Shorts" sections on each article to include Short Treks and Very Short Treks).

However, a really good indicator of whether we should consider VST as episodes is when (as I mentioned above) reliable sources start reporting about the 900th total Star Trek episode (as they did for the 800th). Given that Very Short Treks and Lower Decks are releasing simultaneously, if VST counts, then the VST finale will be the 900th episode. If it doesn't count, then it will be the LD finale.

(As of September 10, we stand at 893 episodes, one of them being VST):

• 894: VST 1x02 Sep 13
• 895: LD 4x03 Sep 14
• 896: VST 1x03 Sep 20
• 897: LD 4x04 Sep 21
• 898: VST 1x04 Sep 27
• 899: LD 4x05 Sep 28
• 900: VST 1x05 Oct 4

or

• 893: LD 4x03 Sep 14
• 894: LD 4x04 Sep 21
• 895: LD 4x05 Sep 28
• 896: LD 4x06 Oct 4
• 897: LD 4x07 Oct 11
• 898: LD 4x08 Oct 18
• 899: LD 4x09 Oct 25
• 900: LD 4x10 Nov 2

-- Alex_21 _TALK 00:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed VST from the tables and official episode counts, but kept the respective sections for the series. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the version of the article we have settled on seems to be a bit of a mixture of what was discussed above. I think it is confusing to include Short Treks in the overview table and episode count for the franchise, but not list it with the other series in the "Released series" section. And we are including Very Short Treks here but we had considered leaving it off this list and I think there is merit there, it is a set of promotional shorts and including it on the full list of "Star Trek television series" is being very generous. I propose we remove Very Short Treks and move Short Treks back to the main list. Any thoughts on that? And on how to handle such a change in the main navbox? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Very Short Treks are just promotional pieces and are not episodes in the traditional sense. Rcarter555 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was first suggested at Talk:Star Trek/Archive 9#Splitting TV series into subsections back in 2019 and I think there is good reason to revisit it. I am proposing that we use headings to split the list of series into the "classic" series and the "modern" series, rather than just having one big list of series. This would be similar to how List of Star Trek films is organised. All of the series from Discovery onwards have been produced by Kurtzman and many of the same crew, they all come from the same production deal, have all been created for Paramount+ (even if Prodigy was removed from it), and I think it just makes sense to treat them all as a sub-group of the franchise that is different from the previous shows. I don't know what the best headings are for the split so happy for suggestions. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic" and "Modern" are both very subjective terms and much harder to define, whereas the films are pretty easy to split with 3 different casts and timeframes. And there's not much grouping The Original Series and The Animated Series with the 80s/90s series besides being pre-Discovery. Plus the gap between The Animated Series and The Next Generation is larger than the gap between the suggested classic and modern eras. It does not seem necessary. Mitchy Power (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to split the series based on franchise producer rather than some sort of classic/modern split, i.e. Roddenberry, Berman, and Kurtzman eras. The only question I would have with that is which group does Next Gen go in? As the franchise continues to grow I think something like this remains helpful for the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there are other suggestions for how to split this list over at Talk:Star Trek#Redundant list of TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the suggestions for potential divides here from the other discussion:

• Broadcast and streaming (this would be the same split as "Classic" and "Modern" which I suggested above, but better titles)
• Live-action and animation
• Broadcast, streaming, and animation
• Split by franchise producer (Roddenberry, Berman, and Kurtzman)

Any further thoughts on these ideas? I personally think broadcast and streaming makes the most sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with either Broadcast and streaming or Live-action and animation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the broadcast and streaming split. Let's see if that triggers any more interest in this. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]