Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 2 September 2008

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Star Trek Start‑class Top‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Star Trek: The Original Series was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Star Trek: The Original Series was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Fighter aircraft

"there has never been a single-person fighter craft shown in the Star Trek universe, except for once briefly in the feature film Star Trek: Insurrection." Have you considered the battles in the Dominion war in Deep Space Nine? pomegranate 17:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement is overly broad. The article is, after all, about TOS, not about the ST universe. Also, the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier is that it is a ship which launches air craft; military air craft in all cases that I am aware of. I would change it to “fighter craft were never featured in Star Trek TOS” or something like that. --Plicease 17:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TOS episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday". We see an American Air Force fighter jet. Sure, it's not what you are thinking of, but... --ThomasOwens (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme song

I removed the following from the Theme section:

The wordless theme song appearing in the show is not actually sung by a human voice, but performed on an electric instrument, the Theremin.

This is the only place where I've ever seen this mentioned. I've always heard that the theme (at least in the second and third seasons) was performed by an uncredited soprano. It's possible a theremin was included in the instrumentation. Doing a Google search failed to uncover any reference to the voice being electronically created. If an authoritative source can be found for this, please feel free to reinstate this. 23skidoo 04:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In the book "Inside Star Trek" (Solow, Justman), p.56 and 351 refer to Loulie Jean Norman as the soprano. She was hired as a SAG actor, so received pay every episode -- until the pay became an issue, and her voice was removed in the second season. Courage was unaware of this change until he was told 27 years later.

Please consider a few things:

The _opening_ theme, like many other themes on television at the time, was re-recorded and re-arranged every season. The first season's theme, for example, has neither a theremin nor a lead soprano vocal performing the melody. I believe it's cellos instead.

By the second season, perhaps the producers wanted it more "space-y", so a theremin or soprano was added. It is my opinion that there are versions of the opening theme with the soprano or with the theremin...or with neither. To say "no, it was theremin...no, it was a soprano" is not a good argument, as I believe both sides are correct/incorrect, depending on the particular recording/version of the song. 71.203.242.94 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Newbie

Yes, there is a soprano in Season One. Her voice is just softened so that you wouldn't know it was a human voice unless you were turning up her specific part. Justman discussed that in the book mentioned above. JoeD80 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters

'It has become an article of unofficial "fanon" that Uhura's first name is Nyota, this is not legitimate canon.'

In the documentary 'William Shatner's Trek Memories' (), Nichelle Nichols herself says, in her interview, that she and Roddenberry agreed upon Uhura's first name being Nyota, which means 'star' in Swahili, when they got together to brainstorm the character's background. Even though Uhura's first name was never uttered in a show, I think the actress' statement should qualify this information as canon, don't you agree? Or are you willing to call Ms. Nichols a liar?

Okay, nobody answered my comment (above). Either nobody disputes what I said, or nobody's listening, so I'm going ahead and changing the mentioned paragraph.

As of December 10, 2005, I noticed that someone eliminated my modification. Since I know it was accurate and I cited my source (see above), I put it back where it was. I (and I'm sure every reader/contributor to this article as well) would appreciate if, in the future, people who made alterations took the time to justify themselves in the discussion page. This article is no one's exclusive property, you know.

• Nothing is canon unless it has been seen in either one of the TV shows or in the movies. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Star_Trek regarding the rules agreed upon for the insertion of non-canonical material This detail is appropriate if you are editing the Nichelle Nichols article, but for the TOS page, it is not appropriate. Jtmichcock 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Special effects

I think something needs to be added about how the special effects (notably the exterior shots of the Enterprise and the beaming effects) were done.

They were done with photographic techniques. Mentioning how many effects houses were involved would be a good thing too. I seem to remember that there were at least five. JoeD80 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Toilets

"When designing the plans for the Enterprise, toilets were accidentally omitted!" Are you sure it was accidentally? As far as I know it wasn't allowed to show toilets on TV (that's why the bathroom of the Brady Bunch didn't have one), so I suppose that was the reason to omit them while designing the Enterprise as well.

Plans for the Enterprise D from The Next Generation had only 1 toilet in the centre of the saucer section if I remember correctly. Dudtz5/3/06 2:29 PM EST

Yes, I recall Jonathan Frakes pointing it out in a behind-the-scenes documentary some time ago. I assume this would mean a public toilet, and that individual quarters had their own bathroom! Marky1981 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes as inspiration for Spock?

This is mentioned in the Characterization section, but is not referenced with a source. It smacks of original research if not outright fancruft. If a source isn't cited (a quote from Roddenberry from a published work would suffice), I'm inclined to delete it.--malber 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up Tag

This article needs more sources cited. There's a lot of information I've heard and read about, but it's not referenced in the article. Other items sound a lot like fan speculation. TOS is undoubtably the most written about television show, so sources shouldn't be hard to find. I'm adding the clean-up tag and listing it on the clean-up page. --malber 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Theme Song

(Transferring from front: Although lyrics were written for the theme music, they were not used. The lyrics were published in Stephen E. Whitfield's authorised 1968 book The Making of Star Trek:

Beyond the rim of the starlight

My love is wandering in starflight

I know he'll find in star clustered reaches

Love, strange love a star woman teaches

I know his journey ends never

His star trek will go on forever

But tell him while he wanders his starry sea

Remember, remember me.

As reported by Herb Solow and Robert Justman in their 1996 book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Gene Roddenberry wrote them without composer Alexander Courage's knowledge, and without intending for them ever to be sung, so that he would nevertheless get a 50% share of the music's performance royalties.

Star Trek Catch Phrases

Perhaps suitable for a separate article: Each of the regulars had one or more catchphrases heard on several episodes. These include:

• Kirk: “Captain’s log: Stardate …”
• Spock: “Fascinating”, “Highly illogical”, "Live long and prosper"
• McCoy: “He’s dead, Jim”, “In a pig’s eye!”, “Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a …”
• Scott: “Ma engines canna take any more!”
• Uhura: “Hailing frequencies open, sir”
• Sulu: “Warp factor one, sir”
• Chekov: “It vas invented in Russia”

Notable guest roles

• Lt. Cmdr. Gary Mitchell (Gary Lockwood)
• Dr. Elizabeth Dehner (Sally Kellerman)
• Balok (voice) / Metron (voice) / Nomad (voice) / Tharn (Vic Perrin)
• Balok (Clint Howard)
• Harcourt Fenton Mudd (Roger C. Carmel)
• Romulan Commander / Sarek (Mark Lenard)
• Ruk / Balok's Double (voice) (Ted Cassidy)
• Andrea (Sherry Jackson)
• Dr. Tristan Adams (James Gregory)
• Simon Van Gelder / Capt. Ron Tracy (Morgan Woodward)
• Miri (Kim Darby)
• Samuel T. Cogley (Elisha Cook Jr.)
• Trelane / Captain Koloth (William Campbell)
• Mea 3 / Philana / Trelane's Mother (Barbara Babcock)
• Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalban)
• Leila Kalomi (Jill Ireland)
• Edith Keeler (Joan Collins)
• Guardian of Forever / Imperial Announcer / Nazi Spokesman / Yarnek (Bartell LaRue)
• Zefram Cochrane (Glenn Corbett)
• Nancy Hedford (Elinor Donahue)
• Eleen (Julie Newmar)
• Kras (Tige Andrews)
• Lt. Carolyn Palamas (Leslie Parrish)
• T'Pau (Celia Lovsky)
• Commodore Decker (William Windom)
• Akuta (Keith Andes)
• Child of Vaal (David Soul)
• Septimus / Atoz (Ian Wolfe)
• Amanda Grayson (Jane Wyatt)
• Jojo Krako (Vic Tayback)
• Rojan (Warren Stevens)
• Dr. Ann Mulhall / Miranda Jones (Diana Muldaur)
• Dr. Richard Daystrom (William H. Marshall)
• Roberta Lincoln (Teri Garr)
• Elaan (France Nuyen)
• Commodore Mendez / The Keeper (voice) (Malachi Throne)
• Miramanee (Sabrina Scharf)
• Salish (Rudy Solari)
• Gorgon, the "Friendly Angel" (Melvin Belli)
• Gem (Kathryn Hays)
• Losira (Lee Meriwether)
• Bele (Frank Gorshin)
• Donald Cory (Keye Luke)
• Marta (Yvonne Craig)
• Anka (Fred Williamson)
• Adam (Charles Napier)
• Flint / Methuselah / Leonardo da Vinci / Johannes Brahms (James Daly)
• Rayna Kapec (Louise Sorel)
• Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley)
• Kara (Marj Dusay)

Nice Job on Cleanup!

Nice job on the clean-up User:Jtmichcock! What we could use now are some published references in addition to the web sites cited. --malber 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I plan to post more, but I want the dust to settle on the opening round of edits. I have the Star Trek Chronology and ST Encyclopedia just waiting. Jtmichcock 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving of TOS episode articles

As per the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Trek#Articles convention, I've moved all Star Trek original series episode articles to locales whose names are consistent with the other series:

• e.g. — For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS episode)

Whenever there is ambiguity or inconsistency in capitalisation of words (and there's alot in the articles), I have deferred to episode entries in The Star Trek Encyclopedia for authoritative article names. (FYI: in the actual episodes, the titles were all upper case and enclosed in quotations: e.g., "FOR THE WORLD IS HOLLOW AND I HAVE TOUCHED THE SKY".)

Consequently, I prevail upon Wikipedians who are so inclined to rewikify terms (e.g., that I've missed) to the moved article names, if the redirects are somehow untenable ... there's alot!

Let me know if you've any questions, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Trekkie" Vs "Trekker"

Amongst fans, there actually is a difference between the two terms, "Trekkie" and "Trekker". There even is a 3rd term: "Trekkist". Although not formal definitions and often blurred by even the practictioners, the distinctions are basically:

• 1. "Trekker"- fans that are in control of their fandom. They might dress up for the conventions and have fun for the weekend, but they do have real lives.
  2. "Trekkies"- the fans that go to extremes. One famous example is the fellow who legally changed his name to "James T. Kirk" (This was years ago, before they officially set the T as standing for "Tiberius", so I don't know if he got the initial right.) At one extreme, there are cases of stalking cast members or production crew known.
  3. "Trekkists" are the intelectuals, the ones don't dress up but who spend the convention in the fanroom discussing Klingon biology or the ramifications of warp-drive on 24th century politics.

I don't know if there's any source where this is actually written down for a formal attribution, but I've known many fans of all 3 groups, and have been to many Science Fiction conventions, and these terms are used by the fans themselves (although it may be that the "Trekkist" is falling out of favor). CFLeon 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Spock would say: 'fascinating.' Nonetheless, there is at least one more species of Trek evolved creature in the universe--namely, us TREKOIDS. None of your categories quite suits us. We're not stalkers, certainly not intellectuals, and definitely not in control of our fandom; in fact, we're characterised by a robotic commitment and have submerged ourselves in the culture to an extent that some media critics have unkindly termed 'brainless' or 'zombie-like.' The bad Captain Kirk himself at least once took public note of us and I'm sure you've seen the many of our type who inexorably swell attendance at all the conventions etc.

The TREKOID type itself is comprised of several different series with distinct performance limitations (ultimately of no practical significance). For example, the 001 model is limited only to the original Star Trek. The 005 model is the most successful and can submerge its identity in any of the Trek incarnations. The TREKOID type is likely Gene's most amazing spin-off and we certainly should not be overlooked in any representation, formal or no. You may be one yourself and not know it.

Trekoid 001-1765

Anon's changing of picture

205.188.117.5 keeps replacing the picture (on numerous Star Trek pages) but won't, after asking him to three times, come here to discuss it before making the change, so I will do it for him. I for one, prefer the current picture to the rear view picture, but its more important that the user come here and propose the change so we can reach a consensus before unilaterally changing it without discussion.

• Again, my comment was blanked, that was also a different article than this one--152.163.100.9 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I looked at that link and while you brought it up, it was never discussed, which is what we're trying to do now. Why don;t you join us instead of just blind reverting?Gator (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What are people's preferences. I would ask 205.188.117.5 not to change it again until we've reached a decision. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two pictures:

]

vs

The starship Enterprise as it appeared on Star Trek

Thoughts?Gator (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either image becuase they're both fair use. If we were to choose between the two, I think a screen shot from a TOS episode would be more appropriate than aa DS9 episode. However, for an article about a TV show, I think the general guideline is to use a DVD cover as it is easier to justify as fair use. My vote: use the TOS screen shot until we have an appropriate DVD cover image. --malber 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The TOS image actually is from the DVD cover for the pilot episode, (I think)--152.163.100.9 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe both pictures may be of use. The photo from the original series can be placed at the top while the DS9 picture would fit quite nicely in the "later appearances" section. Jtmichcock 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the top one should be used since it's actually from TOS. The other could go on the page for the Enterprise NCC-1701. Allemannster 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the article's image with one which I think is more appropriate than the two above: it is from a TOS episode ("Is There In Truth No Beauty?") and is is a fairly decent angle of the ship. Marky1981 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Original airdates

I would appreciate it if someone would return the broadcast history to the main page. People need to know exactly which episodes NBC aired in which timeslot, including the re-runs.

insignia

I believe this is slightly incorrect:

The arrowhead insignia introduced in TOS was actually exclusively used by the crew of the Enterprise. When the crew encountered other Starfleet vessels, they bore different insignia depending on their ship. It is presumed in canon that the arrowhead insignia was adopted by the whole of Starfleet after the end of TOS, but before Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

If I recall, the crew of the station destroyed by V'Ger had a different embelm, implying the switch happened AFTER The Motionless Picture. Also: it may be worth noting that there were numerous cases where the "arrowhead" was inconsistently applied to non-Enterprise personell, e.g. "Court Martial" (I believe). --70.57.89.67 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinning down calendar year

What is the current state of "scholarship" on what future years the original series spanned? The article currently only mentions Kirk's disappearance from Enterprise-B in "the mid 2290s". If there is any kind of sourced consensus on the approximate years of ST:TOS, I think it would be good to include it here. If not, it still might be useful to add a few lines describing the various theories (again, cited with reliable sources, not just fan speculation). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be difficult. Don't forget that various TOS characters appeared in the normal TNG timeline. I can recall Scotty and his Teleportion Hibernation trick kept him alive well into the TNG timeperiod, Spock, his Vulcan half giving him significant longevity, still politically active in TNG and didn't Bones make an apperance? Runwolf 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the enterprise at the top should be changed to a picture from the original series,not deep space 9 Helo254 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I tried once, apparently if it's not flashy, it's not allowed, good motto, worked well for the now cancelled FX-fest known as Enterprise--172.153.7.119 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek 2.0

Shouldn't there be a segment concerning G4's airing of the show? DrWho42 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There finally is... Huzzah! Please contribute thereto: Star Trek 2.0.DrWho42 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First series?

From the "Episodes" section:

In terms of its writing, Star Trek is notable as the first science fiction TV series to utilize the services of leading contemporary science fiction writers, such as Harlan Ellison and Theodore Sturgeon, as well as established TV writers.

Harlan Ellison wrote Demon with a Glass Hand for The Outer Limits, which aired in 1964. Ralphmerridew 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed the text to "one of the earliest". The real problem is that anyone can add claims like this, but few actually attempt to provide evidence from reliable sources, as we're supposed to do. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of this mention is that Star Trek was the first continuing story that would utilize science fiction writers. The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone were both anthology shows -- write whatever your story is -- and this was a specific show -- write about specific characters and their adventures on the Enterprise. JoeD80 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Chekov

I get the little note about Chekov, however shouldn't he still be in the main cast table if that nurse is going to be included? User:002Kflash052 16:58, 14 July 2006

Never been able to find this answer

Can anyone list all the eps that Kirk wears the green shirt and what was the reason behind the switch and why did they switch back to the gold/yellow one? thanksSmith03 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the shirt is used is in the episode with Evil Kirk, to tell them apart, but I can't say for a fact that it's the first time it was used... TheHYPO 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirk wears the green wrap-around shirt in a number of episodes, first seen in " The Enemy Within" (10/6/1966). Other episodes with this shirt include "Mirror, Mirror" (10/06/1967), "Journey to Babel" (11/17/1967), "The Trouble with Tribbles" (12/29/1967), "Bread and Circuses" (3/15/1968), and "The Immunity Syndrome" (1/19/68). FrankWilliams 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite often, the green wrap around shirt was worn earlier in the season when Shatner was trim and able to keep up with his workouts. As the season progressed and he got busier and started cutting out his work outs, the camera shots tended to get closer and the standard gold tunic was more common.  ;)

Elmorth 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for fans

Did any Star Trek episodes/seasons have the Paramount Television "Rectangle" logo? --The Track Master 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Star Trek TOS was originally produced and aired by Desilu studios. Therefore - probably no Paramount logo originally. Now, in syndication, they usually added the Paramount mountain logo at the end along with the Desilu logo. Elmorth 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Desilu was sold to Paramount near the end of the 2nd season. Desilu no longer existed when season 3 began, and there was indeed a Paramount Rectangle logo after 3rd season episodes. JoeD80 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of this article

Should the title of this article not be something more like Star Trek (original series)? I know Fans have made TOS the official title when referring to the show over others, but the series was still technically titled simply "Star Trek"? TheHYPO 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is belated, but I only found out about this title because someone changed the link to this article in another article that I monitor. I agree that it should be renamed to Star Trek (original series). If no one objects, I'll rename it in a week or so. — Val42 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the week is more than over, is it still time for objections? Actually, at least one person, namely me, would prefer not to modify the title. Ok, it's right that "Star Trek" alone is the title. The text in brackets is used to distinguish it from Star Trek. Although in article titles "the" is discouraged , I guess this does not apply to the text in the brackets. And the TOS abbreviation is so frequently used, that I think it's better to keep the "the". --Cyfal (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says the official title is "Star Trek". They list these as "also known as":

• Star Trek: TOS (USA) (promotional abbreviation)
• Star Trek: The Original Series (USA) (informal title)

Just something I found with a Google... --Linda (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bones

"(or "Bones," as Kirk nicknamed him [short for "sawbones,"
a traditional pejorative nickname for doctors])"

Can anyone prove this is the reason? It looks like a guess. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 05:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First Interracial Kiss is a Myth?

I think this information is somewhat false, I remember reading in a biography of one of the members (either Shatner or Roddenberry) that they never really kissed i.e. no lip to lip contact was ever made. Supposedly there were people from the network present to insure that they did not physically kiss, instead Shatner and Nichols had to move their faces towards the camera at such an angle that it only implied that they actually kissed. This should be changed as soon as someone can confim it. I'm sorry that I cannot give further details as to which book it was, I had merely borrowed it from the library at the time.

After reading through the above threads I think the book I read it in was "William Shatner's Trek Memories", I'm not sure if that's the exact title, I clearly remember it being told from Shatners point of view. — Dañiel Garcia--84.166.122.65 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the kiss proves to have been genuine, it may yet turn out not to have been the first interracial kiss on TV (albeit the first highly noticed and influential one). A 1966 episode of Gunsmoke titled "Gunfighter, R.I.P" (IMDb --aired 22 October 1966 - Season 12, Episode 6) included a kiss between a white actor and an Asian/Eurasian actress, France Nuyen (spelling is correct). I watched the episode just yesterday. About the only way you could discount that kiss as an earlier interracial kiss would be on the basis of Nuyen's being biracial ancestry rather than 100% Asian; however, everything I've read suggests that the average viewer at the time would not have distinguished, especially as the character Nuyen played was Asian.

I'll grant that in many minds "interracial" brings to mind black–white, but that's an inaccurately narrow definition when looking at the history and sociology of the "race" categories. I'll also grant, as I already have, that the Shatner-Nichols kiss had impact that this one didn't, and it's possible there was an even earlier interracial kiss that wasn't black-white. Nonetheless, this case does mean that an pre-Star Trek example of an interracial kiss exists in TV history, yet doesn't get all the press for being the "first" even though it was (whether or not the genuine first turns out to be the Gunsmoke kiss or an earlier one). —Lawikitejana 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nichelle Nicoles in the Original Series Season 3 DVD special feature says that they actually did kiss on TV. The original plan was to have them move away from each others lips but make it look like they were kissing, but Shatner delibertly kept messing the scene up by actually kissing her. - 59.167.37.229 11:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just rewatched the scene. When their lips come together, the camera almost immediately moves backward and down to slightly below the back of Nicoles's head. At that point, you can see Shatner's lips pressing into Nicoles's face in the mouth area, but you cannot quite see her lips. However, it is unmistakable that they are kissing lips to lips. 71.235.81.186 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Memories

Does anyone know if the Star Trek Memories special is still included in North American syndication packages for TOS? I know it was at least until the late 1990s (I saw it in a couple of cities that aired TOS). Now that the reruns for TOS appear to be more or less exclusive to one or two cable networks here, I'm wondering if they've dropped it (especially since it's 23 years old now). I added a paragraph to the episodes section because it was the case at one point. 23skidoo 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New CGI version

The Digital Bits website is reporting here that CBS Video plans to redo many of the special effects shots in TOS with new CGI when the series is released in HD format. As a film buff I find the abhorrent (I still object to what Lucas did with the original SW trilogy), but there's always hope they'll actually have the smarts enough to release the original versions. Anyway, the report is here. I'm hesitant to add it yet as, for one thing, is comes from a webcolumn called "The Rumor Mill". If any other sources can be found, this should be added to the article. 23skidoo 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an NPOV issue with the CGI section. It reads too much like a fan page gushing, when in fact the CGI upgrades are very controversial. There needs to be more added to reflect the fact that not everyone approves of what is being done to TOS. (Obviously we have to maintain balance so the POV doesn't tip into the "anti-CGI" column). 23skidoo 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a lengthy paragraph that describes the potential contraversy and neautralizes the point of view of this section. Hopefully everyone will be happy with this. FrankWilliams 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for the frontpage?

Considering the upcoming 8th September anniversary for forty years of Star Trek, the article should be polished and perfected quickly, so it can be featured on the front page! 195.70.32.136 12:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New Sulu Picture

I think we could use a picture of Sulu from the era of TOS. Just my two cents. Who's with me? Allemannster 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree. I think that we should get a new pic with the whole crew. Though i have one Here i think we need a better quality one. EvilHom3r 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Remastered Trek

Has the remastered Trek started airing yet??? According to Star Trek.com, they played the first remastered episode "Balance of Terror" (so they're obviously not in order) on Sept 16th and I missed it. I'm assuming UPN is broadcasting it, (I heard G4 was too). I went to both UPN and G4's sites and the only Trek show UPN is airing in Enterprise, G4 was doing Next Gen. So has the show started yet, and if so who is broadcasting it and when is it on? Cyberia23 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it started airing on September 16th, though as it is in syndication exact dates and times vary. It should be on whatever station was airing Enterprise repeats, so you'll have to check your local listings to find the date at time. For example, in San Diego it aired September 17th and 5pm on XDTV, the MyNetworkTV affiliate. It is airing in Las Vegas on The CW and in Honolulu on CBS. So it really can be anywhere. :) TrekMovie.com has a list at http://trekmovie.com/tos-in-hd/hdtv-star-trek-tos-channel-list/. G4 and TVLand are showing the original versions of Trek, not the new remastered version. UPN no longer exists; it was merged with The WB to form The CW. -- Hawaiian717 07:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's so damn confusing on my TV. I get Next Gen and DS9 on Spike. More Next Gen and some old Trek plus the Trek 2.0 on G4. I get Enterprise, and I'm guessing the Remastered Trek on UPN which used to run on a local station called The Block, but I believe UPN's programming changed hands and is now handled by my local CBS channel. My CBS channel's website makes no mention of the Remastered Trek on their schedule, so I'm guessing they aren't even broadcasting it. Instead they have 9000 hours of CSI or some lame crap going on. Makes my head spin. Plus I'm sick of channels replacing their content. Why the hell is their wrestling on SCI FI channel? That pisses me off. And of course there is VH1 and MTV which no longer play music videos. They should be renamed I Love the 80's Channel and Dude: Pimp my Ride Channel. Cyberia23 07:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense... according to that broadcast schedule it plays on my local Warner Brother's channel. And at a really lame time, Sunday afternoon. Wonderful. Cyberia23 08:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If only this remastered version was delivered in true HDTV and widescreen... *sigh* --Jack Zhang 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to air TOS in HD resolution but not in widescreen aspect ratio unless the original frame was cropped at the top and bottom. TOS was shot on 35mm film in standard academy ratio which corresponds to the standard definition television aspect ratio of 4:3. Thomprod (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Who Mourns for Adonais?" isn't anti-religious

Well at least not completely...

Didn't Kirk say to Apollo: "We don't need GODS. We find the ONE sufficient."

I think the article that states that this episode as anti-religious needs to be modified.

Agreed. When Kirk says "We" he is really speaking for monotheists. There are still polytheists in the Galaxy/Universe which he obviously doesn't speak for. Either way theist is the key word here meaning a belief is "Something". Anti-Religious to me would mean Atheist or a belief in no GOD. I don't think the episode deals with atheism. FrankWilliams 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Regular characters

The article leaves out the regular, faceless crewman from security whose job is to get killed early.

Han Solo

Do we really need so much of an explanation of the Star Wars "Who Shot First?" debate? It seems rather unnecissary in a Star Trek article. Kirby Oak 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so, so I was bold and trimmed it to a half of a sentence. I think it's enough to mention it and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more. -- Hawaiian717 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is fine. It is not long and overdrawn, just a few sentences; and it describes the CGI contraversy from a science-fiction perspective. It is a famous example and yes if users click on the link they will get much more details than the few sentences in the Star Trek article. In fact the few sentences serve as a good introduction to the "Han Shot First" link. FrankWilliams 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree, and I see someone else has reverted it back to my version (not that I mean to claim ownership). I saw the HTML comment and it seemed to me that the problem was with getting some of the details of the Han Shot First thing right and didn't see a problem eliminating that particular problem. Furthermore, from what I've seen of Remastered Trek so far (everything expect Space Seed) it doesn't look like this is going to be an issue with Remastered Trek anyway, so the less space we devote to it the better. It's worth mentioning as an initial concern by the fans but I don't think it needs more than a quick mention. And that's one of the great things about hypertext -- you can hyperlink to get more information rather than repeating it over and over. -- Hawaiian717 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It may yet still happen. The latest report has CBS Digital doing things like recomposing scenes and placing new actors (at the moment CBS Digital employees wanting their 15 minutes) into some scenes. It's quite possible we could see more substantial alterations. For example there's a filming error in Amok Time where Nimoy is visible in the background of a shot where he shouldn't be; I would imagine he'll be removed. There are also some continuity errors in dialogue and the like that I could also see them changing. I don't know if we'll see something as severe as Greedo Shooting First, but the signs are CBS Digital is planning to do more than just put a fresh coat of paint on the proceedings. 23skidoo 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as the new actors go, from what I've heard that has mostly been in enhancing the matte paintings. When they enhance or replace a matte painting shot, one of the things they might add is people seen walking or standing around. They're rather small in the frame and aren't a substantial change to anything from a plot perspective. I'm not arguing that they won't make more substantial "Greedo Shooting First" type edits; rather I just thought that there was too much discussion of it in this article. -- Hawaiian717 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of sentences is "not that much". The sentences give cohesion of the agrugments of "pro" and "against" as a good example. FrankWilliams 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the paragraph is original research and needs to go. Purist vs revisionist is POV language. Let us have some citations for whether people support this or not. Morwen - Talk 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is not pov. It is an explanation of the "pro" and "con" agruments. The source is my understanding of the material; not everything needs to another source. These points of view are also seriously diminish the quality of the articles by the constant removal of material that folks are adding which are useful and serves a purpose. These removals will also endup diminishing motivation to contribute to these articles. FrankWilliams 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"your understanding of the material" is Misplaced Pages:original research, which is specifically disallowed by Misplaced Pages policy. We don't want it. If you wish to express your opinion, perhaps you can find another outlet. If you can find criticism in the Star Trek magazines and fanzines, or a summary of the pro and con sides, great. If this is just your personal opinion, no. Morwen - Talk 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Remastered series" pruning

I have removed several portions of this topic in a article about ST:TOS because they were wandering into subjective discussions of issues that aren't directly about the subject, and included a good bit of unsourced material (i.e., original research). The removed material, if properly researched, may make for a reasonable article on Television series remastering, but does not belong in an article on one such remastered series. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious - why is Dochterman mentioned - although he may have a place to be mentioned elsewhere, he is not a part of the remastering effort underway by CBS/Paramount. If no one objects, I'll remove this in a few days. James 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Best episodes"

Someone please explain the notability and non-npovness of the EW list of best episodes. EW itself may be notable, but a list of their favorite episodes? So what? --EEMeltonIV 04:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with your assessment of notablity. it is topical, notable, and worthy of inclusion. inasmuch as the paragraph—albeit poorly titled—has been in the article for some time now, i should think the onus would be on you for justification of its removal. p.s. sorry about the yo-yo ma revert...that was totally an accident. --emerson7 | Talk 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a separate article on Trek Remastered

This might be stirring up a nest of bugs, but so many noticable changes have been made to Star Trek for the Remastered version, I wonder if it shouldn't be spun off into its own article. If nothing else, the controversy over it needs to be addressed (not doing so -- previous references have been removed, I see -- violates WP:NPOV) and it might be better to have such discussion in a separate article rather than adding more to the parent article. Alternately, such a spin-off article could be called "Reedited and remastered versions of Star Trek TOS" or something like that and also include discussion of syndication edits and Trek 2.0. Thoughts? 68.146.47.196 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my suggestion: Start this as a section in this article. Once it gets larger than one browser page (be reasonable about this), then split it off into its own article. If you think that you already have enough to start an article by itself, then still make your first edit as a section in this article. Once you get it written and have done a preview, if it looks good and is large enough, move it over to the new article, save it, then make a summary (with a link) in the section that you previewed. — Val42 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion

Someone is trying to delete the category Category:Star Trek soundtracks. Please go to the talk page, and try to keep this category open. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sulu's role in the second pilot episode

Physicist or mathematician? The article contradicts itself. --Damifb 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Other best Star Trek Top 10 lists

Other than the given Entertainment weekly Star Trek TOS list, are there any other published lists--in a major publication--on the Top 10 original episodes? I agreed with 9 of the 10 selections but think that perhaps 'This Side of Paradise' could have been replaced with another equally superior show such as 'The Tholian Web', 'Balance of Terror', or 'The Arena'? Leoboudv 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek on tvland.com - not available all countries

I visited tvland.com to view videoclips of Star Trek TOS but I received a notice that it was not available in my country.Please be patient because I cannot type very fast. I am a new user. Kathleen.wright5 Australia 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucille Ball and Star Trek

I added a reference to John Stanley's anecdote in his memoir of how Lucille Ball years afteward told him she stopped NBC from cancelling the show in 1966. The fan campaign to save the show after the second season is justly famous but Ball's role in there being a second season deserves mention.Dgabbard (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Remastered controversy

I still say we need to acknowledge the controversy being generated by Trek Remastered. Unfortunately all the references to said controversy are in blogs and news forums, and Misplaced Pages sourcing policy is still stuck in 1995 when it comes to allowing things like blogs to used as sources. Has there not been any printed articles or news articles on the controversy? It's obvious from looking at forums and newsgroups that a large number of Trekkies (from what I've seen primarily those over the age of 18) are opposed to the idea, or are at least upset that Paramount is letting the original episodes die with standard DVD instead of preserving them for high-def ... but if you post a discussion thread from TrekBBS or TrekWeb as a source, it'll just get deleted as an unsuitable source. What to do? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes now available on CBS

cbs has it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible cancellation of remastering

TrekToday.com posted a news report yesterday that indicated that due to Toshiba financing the remastering and it recent decision to abandon HD-DVD that further remastering projects (at least to the degree of altering the original episode content) has been cancelled. Has anyone seen another source to support this? Several sources are reporting that the HD-DVD release of the second remastered season has been cancelled, for obvious reasons, but TrekToday is the only source I've found that suggests the whole project is dead. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the remastered series is being continued. The only side effect of HD DVD's cancellation, is that remastered season 2 is only planned to hit the shelves in regular DVD, no Blu-ray (yet!). --Mike (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please add future comments to #Requested move.

I know I'm treading on sacred ground here, but I was thinking that this article probably shouldn't be called Star Trek: The Original Series, but instead something more like Star Trek (TV series) or Star Trek (1966 TV series) (Star Trek: The Animated Series also falls into this similar naming scheme). As far as I know, The Original Series appendix is only used for distinguishing it from everything else in the franchise (including the identically-titled animated series); although it appears on the DVD boxes and such, the show title is still simply Star Trek. When the remastered episodes were made, the opening credits do not put "The Original Series" on the bottom, it's still plain "Star Trek". Moving the article to a more accurate title seems logical. Thoughts? --Mike (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The "Original Series" moniker is being used in promotions and the like, but on-screen title remains Star Trek. To muddy the waters is the fact there's an animated series, but I would go with calling it (1972 series). Obviously in both cases redirects would be in place under the "alternate titles." If things aren't confusing enough, Trek Remastered de facto not the Original Series, which has been retired by Paramount in favor of Remastered. It's an altered version of the original show (regardless what side of the remastering debate you're on, that fact can't be disputed - this isn't a case of cleaning up the picture, but wholesale replacement of scenes and creative work and music from the 1960s), so it may be necessary to create a separate article for the remastered series, too. 23skidoo (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur as well. Once upon a time, there was only Star Trek. It should be treated as if nothing came after it when referring to it in the main article. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very tricky issue because both titles are official. Star Trek: The Original Series is not an "informal title" as IMDb calls it, since that title is used on the DVDs, in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and many other official publications. IMDb and TV.com just call it Star Trek. StarTrek.com uses both titles. Most TOS novels, including those published in this century do not include the words The Original Series in their titles. It's really too bad Misplaced Pages doesn't have a definitive policy on the use of retronyms. Whatever title we choose should be used consistently because right now the article is titled Star Trek: The Original Series buth the infobox is titled Star Trek. That's not good and the animated series article has the same problem. Observatorr (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the name to "Star Trek (1966 TV series)". I don't know if this was the right thing to do but making a change is the only way to attract attention to this issue. Lets see if anyone changes it back. Observatorr (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's referred to as Star Trek and Star Trek: The Original Series on the Paramount website but to my mind using the latter (with "the original series" in small letters) distinguishes it from both the franchise in general and the upcoming film. Observatorr, changes such as those you made to a lot of Trek articles shouldn't be made simply to make a point. Alastairward (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

How is this section at all notable?

Notable guest appearances

It seems full of synthesis (who says Montalban's most famous role is that of Roarke?) and non-notable connections. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Star Trek (original series) → Star Trek: The Original Series — Move this article back to its original location

I listed this article on the Requested moves page. There has already been some discussion above and on the Star Trek WikiProject talk page. In order to centralize discussion, please add any future comments here. — OranL (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Support; Let me be first to support any move (first here at least). The series is referred to as both on the Paramount website and as TOS on the DVD box sets I have. It seems prudent to refer to it as the latter to distinguish between the franchise, the series and the upcoming movie. Alastairward (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been clear when starting the discussion: this article is currently located at Star Trek (original series). The requested move would place the article back at its original location of Star Trek: The Original Series. I have added that to the top of the section. — OranL (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: CBS/Paramount calls this series Star Trek, or Star Trek: The Original Series to set it apart in the franchise, most prominently on VHS and DVD. Since we can't have four articles just called Star Trek - this series, the cartoon, the new movie, and the franchise - it would be best to use official, commonly accepted titles to separate them, where possible. Star Trek: The Original Series fills the bill here, so using a third, "invented" title for this article seems both confusing and completely unnecessary. RobWill80 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, a change to support then! I would prefer it to be Star Trek: The Original Series, to fit with what Paramount have on their own website and packaging. One thing though, shouldn't the debate be whether Observatorr's edit should stand and not whether we should go back. I don't think any consensus was reached for his move in the first place. Alastairward (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The reason this is listed on VHS and DVDs as "The Original Series" is because disambiguation is needed outside of Misplaced Pages following all the spinoffs, serializations etc. that have come about. The reason for the external change, thus, is not a renaming of the original series, official or otherwise. What is proposed here is to follow the format of the external disambiguation when we have our own consistent disambiguation naming conventions which don't follow that outside format. By setting "original series" off in parentheses, lowercase, we flag that "Star Trek" is the name, and we are disambiguating it. By making it "Star Trek: The Original Series" we are implying that is the name of the topic, which it's not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment, are you sure about that? The use of capitals by Paramount strongly implies a renaming. Alastairward (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. CBS uses the disambiguator in some places and it seems clear they are distinguishing it from other versions of the show. What would you have them do? They need to make clear which version they are referring to in a title that tells little for such a widespread franchise. They also use the regular old name in other places where by context (such as that where there is an image which disambiguates for them) which show it is is not likely to be unclear. See, for example, , , . WP:UCN trumps anyway. The disparity here is not a close call. Searching for ""star trek" kirk" -"Star Trek: The Original Series" (I use kirk to avoid false positives with other versions of the show but this search likely underestimates because of that limiter) returns just under 33 million Google hits. "Star Trek: The Original Series" returns just under 600 thousand.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, this article should be at Star Trek as patently the primary topic, not at Star Trek (original series), and the current Star Trek target should be at Star Trek (franchise), with appropriate hatnotes at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply; I see merit in that (although I wouldn't use plain Google results to argue a point), although I wouldn't be sure at all about Star Trek pointing to the main page for the entire franchise. Alastairward (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would disagree with moving this article to "Star Trek", as the cartoon and the new movie are so named. The double standard wouldn't sit comfortably with me, and I'm happy with the franchise article staying there - The saying "Greater than the sum" springs to mind. Moving on to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, WP:NAME indicates that WP:NC-TV would override WP:UCN. The guide would say that this article should be "Star Trek (TV series)", with TAS becoming "Star Trek (animated TV series)", or adding the year they premiered to their titles. The guide in question doesn't appear to make allowances for the term "(original series)". However, I don't see how "Star Trek: The Original Series" would be disqualified from being used as the title of this article. If WP:D is followed, option 1 here would seem to allow it. RobWill80 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the move back to Star Trek: The Original Series. The name of the show was "Star Trek", and only after the sequels were created was there a need to disambiguate the title. — OranL (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to Star Trek (1966 TV series)

Star Trek (original series) → Star Trek (1966 TV series)

I propose that the location of the article be changed to "Star Trek (1966 TV series)", in accordance with other disambiguated articles, and since "Star Trek (original series)" seems to be an unconventional disambiguation. This allows the franchise page should stay at "Star Trek", as it should in accordance with other articles (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica) with franchise names that are the same as a name of one or more of the works in the franchise. — OranL (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guest stars

I heard that Beatrice Arthur starred in the series, but I find no mention of her in the individual episode synopses. Or did I miss it?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Must have been a mistake. A quick search at IMDb shows no involvement in Star Trek-related media, but it does show that she was in something called The Star Wars Holiday Special. — OranL (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Star Trek articles
• Top-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles
• Start-Class television articles
• High-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles