Talk:Star Trek: Hidden Frontier

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-06. The result of the discussion was keep.

Star Trek Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

Not sure if this article should be on Wikipedia, there's almost no notability at all outside Star Trek fandom. Not to mention the fact that it's reading as if this fan series was pioneering in some way, or even syndicated. Should we have EVERY single YouTuber listed as "actors" these days? I've added an NN tag. 101.98.171.104 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

There exist dissatisfied ex-HF contributor(s). The indicated person(s) were associated with the production team in its early days and then had a falling out with them. Said person(s) are also complaining about the poor quality of the series and announcing that it clearly violates copyright laws.

It is true that legally, fanfilms violate the copyright of the franchise owners, but most of them (including Paramount) seem to have adopted the George Lucas doctrine that fanfilms are OK under certain conditions. They are fun for the fans and free advertising for the franchise, as long as they don't make money and are not offensive. The HF staff seem to have some such tacit agreement with the powers that be, but some dis-satisfied ex-HF contributor(s) continue(s) to promulgate their vitriol at how awful Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is. Regarding the quality of the show, I suggest you watch a couple episodes from season three or later (when they got past their 'learning' period and 'hit their stride' on the production) and judge for yourself. You don't need any self-appointed critic(s) to tell you what's worth your time to watch.

2005.10.20 18:28 EDT -- Solak

Solak 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (corrected from others' editing of my words and revised to clarify)[reply]

Only factual information in Wikipedia artlces[edit]

I edited the article to follow Wiki's rules: namely, that the article itself should convey only factual, non-disputed information. Disputes are for the Talk page. --Carlos 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the article itself should convey only factual"-Yes. please.
Mr. Solak, Hidden Frontier Fan, please supply internet links to support your comments with direct facts that can be checked:
Comment #1. "but most of them (including Paramount) **SEEM** to have adopted the George Lucas doctrine that fanfilms are OK under certain conditions."

See the Legal issues section of the Star Trek, fan made productions article--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2. "The HF staff **SEEM** to have some such (tacit?) agreement with the powers that be'"

You DO know what tacit means don't you? This is the text of their tacit agreement ... "_______________________________________" >(-v^)--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else is just gossipping and passing on MORE false rumors.

Mr. Solak suggests, "Regarding the quality of the show, I suggest you watch a couple episodes from season three or later and judge for yourself."
What's wrong with the first two seasons?

The same thing that was wrong with my first two years at primary school or your first two years at high school. They were learning their craft and are suggesting you see their best work first.--Kirok 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the restriction that the article only contain factual information, I wish to state, as a member of both cast and crew, that there are no lesbian relationships in Hidden Frontier as of this writing. There are only male gay relationships and hetero relationships, again, as of this writing. JohnWhiting 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge with USS Angeles[edit]

It has been suggested that Uss angeles be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Whilst I believe some members of the USS Angeles still take part in Hidden Frontiers and it is true that HF developed from work done in the USS Angeles, the two groups are independant and exist today concurrently. Are you perhaps suggesting that the article for the United States of America should be merged with that of the United Kingdom since the one is an off-shoot of the other?--Kirok 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the difference there is that both the UK and the US have their own identities, and would warrant their own articles, in your example. However, the USS Angeles article doesn't appear to be about the club, per se, but more about their fan videos, specifially the Voyages of the USS Angeles - which did morph into the Hidden Frontier series, and are listed on the Hidden Frontier page. It makes sense for the relevant important information from the Angeles article to me merged into the HF article, with a redirect added on the Angeles page. MikeWazowski 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be flip and change my analogy to the Roman Empire and Italy, but it gets tiresome after a while. My major problem with this is that, from the way I read it, the films done by the USS Angeles 'video production committee' were independant of the two groups that came after - Hidden Frontier and the Redshirt Filmette series - and i think it would be misleading to suggest that. I could be wrong: What do the groups involved think?--Kirok 07:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kirok. As a former staff member of Hidden Frontier, I can assure that today's Hidden Frontier has had no substantial involvement with the Angeles club since HF spun off from Angeles. It did not morph. It went off on its own. That's like saying you should merge Lou Grant’s listing with The Mary Tyler Moore Show’s because one spun off from the other. Add to that that the Angeles videos have never been, and never will be, available publicly. Also, Angeles produced maybe three videos. Hidden Frontier has produced 42. It deserves to be recognized on its own merits. Carlos 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, No, No!!! A reference is all that is needed. The USS Angeles is completely separate. TEG 05:13, 2 March

2006 (UTC)

I maybe should have been told about this discussion because I have been connected with fan videos; Angeles, Hidden Frontier and Redshirt Filmette Series. I think I have a special knowledge aboout this question. I feel that 'Voyages of the Angeles' should have it's own entry because of it's several episodes and it's great work involved. I was a club member and an 'invited' member of the Angeles Video Production committee. I worked on several Angeles videos and guest starred in the Angeles video, "A Little Night Music'[1]. Hidden Frontier was NEVER a Angeles club sanctioned project because the Angeles video production committe was still very active in making their own Angeles shows. I worked on several Hidden Frontier early episodes and I was invited to portray 'Mr. Lightoller' in Hidden Frontier's Titanic themed show '2 Hours'. I dropped out because of problems with the production personnel(contact me). At the 'hiatus' of the Angeles club video production, I voluteered my Redshirt video ideas. The members of the Angeles Video Production committee agreed to sanction my Redshirt video. I started to produced the RedShirt Filmette series's starting episode[2]. That Angeles club sanction ended before my video was shot. You must understand that I was around for the transition time of all these many fan video projects. (No matter what rumors you have heard to the contrary). I think some small mentioning of the Angeles series 'roots' should be in BOTH Hidden Frontier and the Redshirt Filmette series entries due to fact that several 'common' people worked on BOTH projects and also some already shot Angeles footage is re-used in a produced Hidden Frontier show. The Angeles should be mentioned in the Redshirt Filmette Wiki entry because the Redshirt was an Angeles club sanctioned project because of the Angeles video production committee voted it so. (Too complicate this matter even more, two major Hidden Frontier personnel worked on the Redshirt Filmette episode, too!) There is enough for the Angeles to have their own and a small mention in the Redshirt and Hidden Frontier entries. Contact me for more first-hand info on these fan film and other subjects. Netwriter 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny coincidence, I was also around back then. Rob Caves had used some of my CG work for the Angeles movie, and we ended up becoming friends online, though I admit I never met the guy in real life. I joined the club, and I think I may have been a member for like a month before online squabling between club members led to, well me getting fed up and quitting. But I was involved in Rob's CG department I guess you could say, and while none of the graphics I rendered ended up in the series (Rob and I often argued opposite sides of the Lightwave/3D Studio Max camp... Him being the producer, won) but I am credited in at least the first two episodes as "Mike Wright" for some starships I had created that he did end up using. Anyway, I guess my point being, I seem to recall the split in production largly being over the policy of releasing episodes to the public, a policy that was unilaterally controlled in the club by Jennifer Cole. (Is that her name? I forget, but she was the captain) I had heard rumors that Angeles continued producing their series after Rob continued with Hidden Frontier, but never heard if they had actually successfully completed anything. I do know that a lot of people involved in the original movie got involved with HF. I don't believe Rob ever used anything of mine or credited me in that series... I had pretty much retired from that hobby by then. But anyway... I digress. --67.185.57.97 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section Vandalized[edit]

Another anonymous editor (68.84.254.150) has placed several alleged items of trivia in the trivia section which are nothing more than opinionated gibes or unverifiable information. A "humorous filmclip . . . on the Internet", for example, does not provide a link to the filmclip. Other links in the new trivia entries go to irrelevant destinations, such as articles on Maude, The Wiz, SeaQuest DSV, the Controversy subarticle for Brannon Braga, and so forth. The entries have inherently unverifiable comments such as "most Star Trek fans". None of the newer entries are written from a neutral point of view; all are the work of the same anonymous editor. I strongly recommend these entries for deletion. JohnWhiting 11:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Paramount music[edit]

Do you know why the show's use of music which has been generally taken from all Paramount productions (Star Trek and non-Star Trek) decreases numbers of copyright holders that might take offensive action and sent a cease and desist letter? If so, why there are legal reasons to do so? Or have the show's producers paid their royalties to Paramount? Why scores from TNG: The Best of Both Worlds are never used in future episodes after Hell's Gate, Parts 1 and 2? --60.50.56.251 12:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are questions properly referrred to the show's producers on their own message boards rather than speculated on Wikipedia without any basis in verifiable fact. --Carlos 03:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they have to call the ship Excelsior? The origional Excelsior was still active at the time =\

High resolution?[edit]

If you live in the dark ages perhaps. Their "high res" is very low res and totally crappy quality, very pixilated and the sound is tinny after being compressed too much. You can choose between bad and worse quality. The text should be more neutral when bescribing this. IceHunter 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the West wing[edit]

alot of the dialouge in this show comes straight out of west wing, how do we include that information in the article?

That was an unfortunate uncredited lapse in one episode. It is not indicative of the series as a whole. Carlos (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The folks who maintain this article might want to take the "media" external links and use them as references -- and supports of notability -- in this article. At first glance, there doesn't seem to be objective, supporting material for this project's real-world notability. Given the BBC and other media coverage, that clearly isn't the case -- but one shouldn't have to go to the bullets at the end of the article to find out how/why this article's subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --EEMeltonIV 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good enough reason to have a tag on. Hornplease 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

The episode list is awkwardly formatted (stems from having spaces leading the bullet points). You might take a look at Help:Table for some ways to clean it up. Much of the information may be a bit too trivial to be worth including here. What is "Blp"? "Prw"? There's such a thing as too much information, and abbreviations without a deciphering key is just distraction. --EEMeltonIV 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]