Talk:Star Trek/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Professor Ross noting religious elements in Star Trek:

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm Neustriano 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to say whether or not it is a good article. It's WP:OR. McKay 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Phase II' from this page

I think that the entire section of 'Phase II' should be removed from this article. This has been mentioned a few times already, but I think this should now be discussed and voted on. 'Phase II' plays a tiny, tiny role in the Star Trek phenomenon, not having even produced a single episode. It's hard to describe to a friend what Star Trek is, when sending him/her a link to this page, only to be followed by an email to explain that one should ignore the 'Phase II' section. Thoughts? enderminh 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete since it plays a tiny role within Star Trek's official production line enderminh 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoa now, this ain't no dang ol' poll, it's a discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth a mention, and the section isn't too long. Also, the picture is interesting. Perhaps a mention of it along with a new page that discusses Star Trek projects that began and didn't materialize or something. The Academy TV series, Phase II, movies that were substantially reworked past recognizability from the early incarnations, etc. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Some pretty impressive resources went into developing Phase II, many of which were manifested in The Motion Picture. It may not have borne fruit under the "Phase II" label, but it was siphoned into other projects. It's worth keeping here. --EEMeltonIV 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Phase II was important, but does it really belong between TAS and TNG in "TV Series", it wasn't ever made into a television series, so I personally think it's wrong there. Maybe we could create a history section, and put a little blurb there about it? It might fit nicely in "Other storylines and canonicty"? there has been little (but some) leaked about possible storylines for the 9th-11th movies that kinda represent "failed movies" but we don't put them in the movies section. Sure Phase II is more notable then any of those failed movies, but it wasn't actually a television series. McKay 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that Phase II already has an article of its own. How about getting rid of this section in this page, and add a sentence to the Television series section that says something like (changes italized) "The Original Series was canceled after its third season due to low ratings, it has served as the foundation for five additional Star Trek television series as well as a six series that was in planning but never materialized. Altogether, the six broadcasted series comprise a total of 726 episodes ..." enderminh 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Franchise

I'd like to make a comment on the opening sentence of the article: "Star Trek is an American science fiction franchise". I don't really agree with the word "franchise" having such prominence here. Sure, Star Trek has become a big franchise in the business world and a lot of money is being made out of it, but I don't feel that a "franchise" gets to the core of defining in an initial sentence what Star Trek really is. Anyone else agree? Prlewis0 08:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, however, I can't think of a better word. Possible alternatives: "Star Trek is an American science fiction... show/production/drama/creation"enderminh 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't really think of a better word either, hence why I didn't suggest one! :-) But yeah... perhaps simply "creation" is better. References to the extensive franchise could then be made lower down. Thoughts? Prlewis0 12:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's kinda a "universe" isn't it. What about "entertainment series" or something like that? define:Star Trek produces "successful science fiction TV drama" which is too specific as per "TV". Just my quarter. McKay 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I like "entertainment series" more than "franchise" and "creation". The word "universe" is only understood by Sci-Fi fans, but other people reading this will not understand what is meant with "Star Trek is an American science fiction universe". Any other thoughts by anyone else, before we change it to ... say "entertainment series"? enderminh 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Entertainment series" sounds reasonable enough to me... Prlewis0 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've made a couple of changes to reflect this discussion. Prlewis0 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that someone changed the first line back to 'franchise', changing the primary definition from 'entertainment series'. I really don't think that the first definition of what Star Trek is should be a franchise owned by a particular company. Also, please contribute to discussions in progress before just making changes like this. Anyway, I've made an edit which I hope will keep both sides happy. Prlewis0 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Tampering with Memory Alpha Links?!

Someone had been removing links throughout wikipedia star trek articles to Memory Alpha. Is there a policy behind this or is someone unjustly tampering? I think the links to Memory Alpha should be kept for greater facility in comparing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.122.203 (talk • contribs)

They're not being removed; another user turned the text link into a little infobox-ish thing. Look on the right side of the screen. --EEMeltonIV 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Does someone know where the lost Star Trek series have gone or even it's name?

I have seen a Star Trek series on VHS back in the 80's and it was possible to hire it in the video shops in Stockholm at the same time as Star Trek TNG. I am not shure about the complete name of this series, but it was something like Excalibur, Excelsior or even New Frontieer (Something) (This series was NOT the original, it was NOT Deep Space Nine, it was NOT Voyager or Enterprise, it was another series with real actors).

It was possible to even purchase this series on VHS in the shops back in 1995. And suddenly it was lost, gone forever? I haven't seen it since 1995. Does someone old enough (over 30) remeber it? Or have someone more than myself seen it? Or does someone know why it's gone? It was back in the 80's and once in 1995, so my memory of it isn't so good. :-(

Finaly, don't say that it doesn't excist just because you haven't seen it, or that I have done a mix up with some other Star Trek series, because I have not. Don't say that it must have been a fan made series, because it was NOT.

Greetings from Tom

The only series that was at all started with production that did not air is Star Trek: Phase II. Other than that, I know you didn't want it said, but it had to either not exist, or was a fan made series. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. --OuroborosCobra 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It could be TOS, or it could be TAS? New Frontiers was a licensed Book series, but that was in the 90s. McKay 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I was wondering if we could start a Star Trek history section. Not of the universe, but of the show. Like how Roddenberry came up with the idea in the first place. the fact that the franchise's ownership changed from NBC to paramount, the trekunited attempts to save the series enterprise. that should clean a lot of things up and make this page and make this article more encyclopedic. Oldag07 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the page is too big as it is, but feel free to create a separate article, like History of Star Trek or something. McKay 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
this page is 34,052 bytes. My university page, with just got FA status was 87000ish. we got plenty of spaceOldag07 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because it happened to them doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the WP:SIZE guidelines, which states 32k is the general guideline. Having said that, a summary section on History should be here anyway, even if we have a page for it. McKay 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Current status and future and star trek phase ii can be absorbed into such a summary. should keep the length down. any suggestions on where to start research? btw, do you want me to archive this talk page, it is massive.Oldag07 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the obvious source for starting a history of Trek would be Stephen Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek, published in, I believe, 1968. It went through many reprintings, and detailed the genesis of the first series.

Mark Sublette 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Agree, there should be a history section or article.

69.181.188.254 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

The article isn't comprehensive enough yet. There's barely anything about the show and the film's creation, and if the lead summarises the article why are none of the themes of the franchise discussed in the article? Alientraveller 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help on an ST article

I need ST editors who are more experienced than I to deal with the situation that is rapidly developing over at Battle of Wolf 359. User:EEMeltonIV did a large chop last night and cut out a list of ships that is factually mentioned and referenced in Star Trek episodes. His reason was that he didnt feel such a list deserved to be in the article and he then became sarcastic on the talk page when I reverted his changes. I've had a few run-ins with this guy and he usually degrades to sarcasm and borderline name calling when he doesnt get his way. His crowning achievement was bringing up a months old closed Arb Com case in an edit summary as an attempt to cast a shadow on another editor [1]. At this point, other editors need to become involved. He is removing factually referenced material from articles. Time to put a stop to it. Thank you. -38.119.112.187 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek. --EEMeltonIV 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A good MATURE suggestion. Thank you! Thats all that we need to make this work. I wont have time to pursue it further as the real world calls. But now other Trek editors may get involved and fix as you suggested. An MA link has already been added. That probably would do just as well. -38.119.112.190 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Heterosexual vs Homosexual

Why is a list of homosexual charecters allowed but not a list of heterosexual? Reverting vadalism.68.19.212.161 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • For the same reason there isn't a discussion of white characters on Star Trek. Do you really need to have this explained to you? The LGBT article discusses fan speculation and controversy surrounding Star Trek's dealing with (or lack of dealing with) gay issues. Why are you so threatened by its existance? --Etacar11 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't disallowed. If you'd like to write an article on heterosexuality in Star Trek, more power to you. I suggest you focus on Seven of Nine's blatant sexualization, Kirk and Riker's womanizing habits, and the Borg Queen attempting to seduce Data in First Contact. The reason the link is being removed from the article is that it seems to other editors (including myself) that the link to the non-existent heterosexuality article is intended to make "statement" about homosexuality, and is not an attempt to improve this article - that violates Wikipedia: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and treads on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns. -- stillnotelf is invisible 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I second the above opinion. 2Misters 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do the gays have to have everything? Back in the 70's it was rumored that Kirk and Spock were lovers and Gene himself dispelled that in the opening chapters of his novelization of his Motion Picture script. The book is available at used bookstores everywhere. Lots of real life people in Hollywood and at Dezilu were in fact, GAY. No one cared. George Takei is still GAY. No one cares.

And if you weren't just a little bit homophobic, do you think you would even be saying this? 79.65.31.77 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Given that this has been an ongoing controversy and even addressed by Gene Roddenberry himself, there needs to be some mention of it, and the distress of some fans that Star Trek has practically ignored it. I also suggest that sexuality in general (other than plain old vanilla sex) has also been ignored for the most part, due to the limitations of television on this score.

69.181.188.254 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seven of Nine did NOT increase Voyager's ratings, once again.

Whoever wrote that Berman's introduction of Seven of Nine increased Voyager's ratings should have consulted the archived debate where it was proven definitively that the ratings continued to fall. Check "85 VOY ratings did NOT increase with the addition of "Seven of Nine". Check also the discussion of Nielsen Media Research where the entire ratings archive for Voyager was compiled. When I get a few minutes I'll dig through history and find the way it was correctly phrased. As of now, I've corrected the erroneous entry from the BIG FAN of Seven of Nine. --Nephandus 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

did they simply decrease at a slower rate? Just a thought? For me only Enterprise made me actively not watch whilst Voyager was bearable for the most part. Perhaps Jeri Ryan's role helped keep ratings at a respectable level whils still declining? Certainly the nicest costumed damage limitation I've ever seen! Luke

Star Trek 2.0

Shouldn't there be a segment concerning G4's airing of the show? DrWho42 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, except that's the stupidest format for a TV show I've ever seen, I can't possibly imagine the apeal of shrinking the picture to 1/2 it's size, and bombarding watchers with more flashy crap on the top/side/bottom of the screen, than your average cable news show, I mean no ones attention span is that short, surely they'll give up on this silly format after a while and just air them normally--172.153.7.119 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • PS, they totally ripped off mystery science theater with the whole on screen, real time, chat room thing--172.153.7.119 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's finally an article thereon, so please feel free to contribute thereto. =)

Star Trek 2.0

G4 is now the only channel, I know of myself, that still shows the original Star Trek, ever since SciFi Channel took it off its line-up..DrWho42 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also would appreciate some discussion of the abomination that is the new reworked TOS shows with new, sometimes inferior, special effects. I have written before about how disrectful these changes are to the hard-working special effects creators on the original show, and how, in many cases, the original effects fit better in the show, or look better, or both. They have destroyed the amoeba effect on "Immunity Syndrome", which was a ground-breaking effect, one of, in my view, the most impressive effects ever made for its time. Also, many feel that the effects, in their simplicity, is what gives the show its charm. They are also part of the history of Star Trek and demonstrate the huge problems of putting on a show of that kind in that era. I feel Paramount did this to basically extend the copyright forever and have something new to sell, and, although I don't like George Lucas changing old Star Wars, at least it's his to desecrate; Gene Roddenberry and the special effects wizards are mostly not alive to protest.

What is worse, when aired on tv, they show these new effects, but delete some of the most famous dialogue lines in the history of Star Trek, such as "Vulcans never bluff", which has become a catchphrase of sorts. In fact, the whole scene between Spock and Decker has been butchered!

69.181.188.254 05:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I merged the page to TOS page, as I feel it doesn't need its own article. It can't be expanded very much and works much better as a trivia bit on TOS article. The Wookieepedian 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, primarily true, although I feel there should be some segment concerning what the Spock Market is and how it operates, but again another subset of trivia. DrWho42 01:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

TVland shows Trek at 4am every day. It's been edited for political correctness.

List of multi-part episodes

I don't think the list of multi-part episodes is appropriate for the main Star Trek article. I suggest moving it to List of Star Trek episodes. Marky1981 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Also, we need to kill at least 8k, to bring the article down to size. Anynting else that should be seperated? McKay 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I brought it down a lot, but users generally prefer it long and redundant.--StAkAr Karnak 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason the section you deleted was restored is because the topic still needs a summarization in the main article, and until that's created, the whole section will stay. There is no harm in having more information than not, when that information is correct. Also, why does it need to go down 8k? I wasn't aware of a limit, and Star Trek is such an encompassing subject that it requires a large article. Newnam(talk) 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

star trek and science

I realise that what Im going to say may sound VERY UPSETTING to most Trekkies here,but my request is to put your emotions and your passion for STar Trek aside before responding to this.

First how can Star Trek be "science fiction"?Almost every episode since the series first began contains magical or fantasy elements.Every time I discuss the so-called "science" of Star Trek with Trekkies they respond with such hostility that even once,a Trekkie rudely called me "a moron".

Now, I've seen these fantasy in ALMOST EVERY EPISODE of Star Trek and ofcourse I cant list them all but I'll list a few:

-time travel.How can this be sceintific?Sceince ficiton involves technology that is a POSSIBILITY or carries a scientific theory behind it.If such a thing MIGHT be possible in the future,then why don't people come here from the future?

-Charlie Evans.FOr those of you who don't know,he is a character from the original series who could make people vanish into nothing by staring at them.Where's the "science" in that?

-Gary Mitchal.Another character from the original series who develops god-like powers and does things that scientits would classify plainly as "impossible" such as creating a garden by simply raising his hand.Again where's the "science" in that?

-An episode from The Next Generation features a gun that sends a planet 3000 years back in time.More like a magical gun if you ask me.No the planet doesnt move through space.The planet is simply where it is just the time is 3000 years back.

-Q.Trekkies tell me he is not a magician at all but simply "plays with time"(????)to do what he does.Where does exactly "playing with time" fit in science?And how come only Q can do this?

-An episode in Voyager features evolved,humaniod dinasours he who meet humans for the first time.They somehow know how to speak English(long before they meet humans???) and their Queen is somehow able to jam Voyager's entire systems,thus disabling the ship entirely with simply the power of her will.Science again guys where is it?

My purpose for asking these questions is because Trekkies claim that Star Trek somehow has "evolutionized" science and that cell phones exist today because of Stat Trek.I'd like someone to answer what Star Trek has to do with science at all.DOn't take me for a Star Trek hater or accuse me of being one.I enjoy watching STar Trek(that is for pure entertainment purposes).By Trekkies always claiming that Star Trek is science or that it is "our future"(cool we get to meet elves from another planet one day,later to be called "vulcans"-sorry but a little satire here is needed) is only misinforming people.

And please limit the reponse to an answer (long or short) and let's not let it escelate into a Star Trek vs STar Wars discussion or anything.Im only trying to learn how science and STar Trek fit together.Nadirali 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Actually, this isn't the place for anything other than article improvement discussions. If there are any specific, actionable changes to Star Trek that you'd like to suggest, we can work from there. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If we should discuss improving the article on Star Trek,then I suggest it should be laballed fantasy drama or space fantasy instead of science fiction for the reasons I have stated above.Otherwise it's misinforming people.I dont think wikipedia is here for that.And as for discussion,Im not here to start any arguements,thats why Im here to inquire,why is it considered sceintific?I thought the discussion is also an oppertunity to learn?Thats all.Nadirali 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Please review WP:OR to see why we can't just change the classification without citing good references. If you can find persuasive evidence that it's actually classified as you described by reputable sources, then we can. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my most reliable srource http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_ST.html however,I'd like you to go through the ENTIRE SITE before judging it.I also parcially posted my questions to learn more about why star trek is considered to be "scientific".After all this is a site where we come to learn no?Nadirali 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I realise that what I'm going to say may sound VERY UPSETTING to you, but you'll have to read the Wikipedia policies regarding reliability of sources. I'd like you to go through the ENTIRE ARTICLE before posting here again. That will answer the questions that you have from failing to read the ENTIRE TWO SENTENCES by CHAIRBOY above. Val42 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture and fiction Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone.) Yes I read the article and quoted to prove I read it.That paragraph refers to wikipedia's policy regarding fictional stuff like star trek.

Oh and my source is quite reliable and wikipedia agrees. "Stardestroyer.net (SDN) is a science fiction information site and online community maintained by Michael Wong, primarily devoted to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate. SDN presents its case (in the Technology and Tactics sections) through the fictional narrative of an Imperial intelligence officer weighing the strategic and tactical balance between Star Wars' Galactic Empire and Star Trek's United Federation of Planets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neocapitalist/SDnetNadirali 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

No offense, but your entire train of thought violates WP:POINT --Mhking 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we all hold our tongues (eh, even though this is my first bit of chiming in) for a bit and let the second string take up this discussion. Nadirali, kick your feet up -- no doubt(?) someone else will come along and lend credence, or at least agree, with your ideas. Right? :Seriously, though -- you brought up similar "points" in the Star Wars discussion and they got you no where. If Star Trek fanboys and Star Wars fanboys can band together and pretty consistently argue that your assorted contentions are unfounded -- or at least don't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion -- that's gotta say something. --EEMeltonIV 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget I even asked.I came looking for answers(I even pleaded for answers only) not discussions.And both times I got lectures.So forget I even asked since I probably won;t find the answers i seek.Nadirali 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

  • Please go to your user talk page where I have posted a lengthy response to your original lecture above. (In case Nadirali deletes it, I will keep a copy on my own User talk page). Darcyj 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

these things include items we have no idea how to do today, such as time travel, etc, and several possible ways we as humans may develop given time through eveloution. these are things that we cannot do scientifically today, but may eventually come to pass. that's where the fiction comes in, because while it may not be possible and we may not have any knowledge of it yet, they made theories of it, that while may not be scientifically acurate, make for the fiction of it. since it is fiction, to a large extent we have to suspend disbelieve and enjoy

Why does NO ONE point out the two SIMPLE 'space' TRUTHS this series ( and 'others', like 'S*** Wars' ) IGNORE ? these HORRIBLE flaws are constantly portrayed in MOST 'space' stories; is it done for a 'dumb' audience ? done 'accidentally' by dumb producers ? for 'marketing' ? or what might even be a warped sense of 'imagery portrayal political correctness' ? ONE. There is NO SOUND in SPACE !!!!!!!! phaser, torpedo, & other explosion SOUNDS are NA ! TWO. an orbiting ship, even one with 'generated gravity' would have it's 'bottom' closest to the surface of the planet it is orbiting ! i think EVERY starship or other craft i've seen orbit ('on screen', of course!) is portrayed/oriented with it's left engine/drive closest to the object it is orbiting. only in a FEW scenes, like when in 'space dock', is a "more" accurate portrayal made. yes, i UNDERSTAND the 'viewers' sense of 'up-and-down' is of 'concern', but let's INFORM everybody about REALITY ! PLEASE !! hopeful, but not waiting 4.243.143.252 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about sound in space, but that's one of the conventions to make science fiction more exciting. Babylon 5 did tactical space battles realistically, but it isn't around any more. Ones that lasted longer, among other things, have sound in space.
However, the orientation of a ship in orbit doesn't depend on what is "down" on the ship. The space shuttle often orbits to be facing towards or away from the Sun, depending on many factors. — Val42 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Communism?

Mabye this is just my own interpretation, but it seems fairly obvious to me that there are certain communist ideals present in Star Trek; the lack of currency, the fact that everyone works for the benefit of everyone else without the drive of wealth. I can't remember exactly which, but in a Next generation episode several chryogenically frozen humans are found from the 2oth century. One of those is looking forward to collecting the results of hundreds of years of interest, yet cannot collect because of the disappearance of currency. The crew members seem bemused by this drive for wealth. Surley this ideal deserves a mention? Monkeymox 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The episode you're looking for is "The Neutral Zone". If you can find a verifiable source which discusses Star Trek vs communism, feel free to add it. Jpers36 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there used to be a themes section that is no longer present. Has this been relocated? I believe this would be more relevant in a themes section (provided i find evidence) Monkeymox 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Currency as we now know it isn't real. No one barters for gold. Some people still lust for gold, but barbarians no longer invade Rome for gold. Gene believed in a world where like Sparta, if there was NO money, there would be no reason for war. If a synthesizer or replicator could produce ANYTHING, why fight? That's not Communism.


There are constant references in the show and movies to "credits" or "gold press latinum" etc. It's quite clear that people still work to get money or similar. In Star Fleet, presumably, just as the military is essentially communistic, they need not worry about such things because all their needs are provided. Still they do use "credits".

69.181.188.254 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

I have seen most of the Star Trek shows and movies, and I have noticed that, while they always say stuff about earth being 'united' most everyone speaks with American accents and looks American, with most cultural references being American. This is funny since with the 'united earth' with 'everyone working to further humanity', communism is what they seem to have (which by the way, would never work).

I also notice that, while they talk about the 'federation' of many alien species, that almost all of Star-Fleet crews are human.

Seems to me that this these things should be talked about in the article. 65.27.139.162 11:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(changed grammar, spelling, punctuation)

I think Star Trek made clear that, often, Star Fleet crews would have fairly homogeneous crews in order to avoid the problems of having people not breathing the same air mixtures, etc. on the same ship and avoiding the concomitant problems.

69.181.188.254 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek soundtracks deletion

Someone is trying to delete the ctaegory Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go to the talk page, and try to keep this category in existence. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek/Archive_3&oldid=1137202414"