Talk:James T. Kirk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Do we need a cultural impact section?

I mean, Eddie Murphy has repeatedly referred to Captain Kirk as "the coolest white man alive." Shatner's portrayal has had a lasting effect on how the character is portrayed, Pine's - and to a lesser extent, Cawley's performances notwithstanding. All of the comedic efforts in playing the character have used Shatner as a template, so there is plenty of reason to note some of those portrayals, which would back up the image collage noting the different portrayals, including Belushi's. Additionally, I remember back in the 90's that discussion was made regarding Kirk's 'think or sink' command style, his use of cowboy diplomacy, or whatnot in contrast to Picard's methods of leadership and diplomacy. There would seem to be ample material to develop out this section. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

TALK:James_T._Kirk#List Clean-up. There is a disagreement over whether to include non-studio actors in the bio box. In addition, a studio actor has not been included and has been cut from the bio box. 24.115.224.131 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please see WP:TALK to learn the protocols for talkpages; we usually like to indent our discussions so they are easier to follow. I've added indent to your comments. Please do that for yourself in the future, thanks.

Secondly, where is the section that discusses the Clean-up?

Thirdly, what does that discussion have to do with what I asked? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cawley at AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cawley (2nd nomination)‎. THF (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, noted that. Funny that you put that notice here...almost as if you were trying to lend credence to your argument about an Elvis impersonator being unworthy of being mentioned in the article. Sorry, but my Machiavellian Behavior Detector truck just ran over my remaining AGF. Disingenuous behavior is not encyclopedic; expect resistance, THF. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The words "Elvis impersonator" never crossed my lips. Please recognize that WP:NOT#BATTLE. I came to this page from a noticeboard, and immediately saw a problem. Putting a notice on this page was the best way to notify people interested in the status of the Cawley article. THF (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, huh. Was that or before or after the attempt at redirecting Cawley failed utterly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted, and I am discussing at AFD. That's how it works at Wikipedia. Why so antagonistic? Why are you taking this personally? THF (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will attempt to explain why I am frustrated at your actions here. You don't think Cawley should be mentioned in the article or in the infobox. It doesn't agree with existing consensus, and you did indeed head to discussion. While your opinions as to the fan-film are acceptable here, they cannot be used in determining (or overruling) a pre-existing consensus or ourt own policies and guidelines for inclusion. While discussing the mater here you continually reverted back to your preferred versionb - which was not the pre-existing consensus version - right up to the 3RR line. That was strike one with me. Strike two was when you then - while engaged in discussion here - attempted to moot the discussion by redirecting Cawley's article. That is disingenuous. Strike three was to pursue AfD when the redirect efforts failed. You are conducting a multi-planed attack, cynically using Wikipedia as a battleground, and I am frankly offended by the feigned innocence on your part. I don't mind if consensus finds a different point of view than mine - it often happens. You need to learn to suck it up and move on. You do not forum-shop to get your way.

You wanted to know why I was upset at you? There it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing me with someone else, as you are ascribing positions to me I have never taken. My AFD is entirely consistent with my redirect, and is a separate issue, which is much more important to me than anything in this article. My only contribution to this article was to ensure that Carrey and Belushi had their contributions to the Kirk character fully sourced, and to note that there was a fatal inconsistency in arguing that Cawley should be in the infobox because he was "notable" but Belushi shouldn't because it wasn't a "traditional" performance. I don't care whether Cawley is or isn't in the infobox; I do object to Cawley being in when more notable performances are out. WP:COOL, please. THF (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing these performances, which mimic Shatner, with actual performances of Kirk. This article is about the character, not a spoofing of another performer's interpretation that character. I am unsure how to make it any clearer w/out the use of handpuppets.

Additionally, I stand by my interpretation of your actions:

• 13:27 3.12: added non-notable portrayal to infobox at Kirk, marginalizing Cawley's portrayal
• 13:45 3.12: removed Cawley from the Lede
• 8:39 3.13: further marginalizing Cawley's portrayal, removing it from chronological order, violating undue weight guidelines
• 8:43 3.13: redirected Cawley article, displacing the content
• 10:19 3.13: after redirect is reverted, it is nom'd for AfD by you
• 10.22 3.13: removing Cawley from infobox altogether

Now, maybe my interpretation is all just a mass of wacky coincidences, but I don't think it is - your timeline is just too clear on impressing your intent on removing Cawley. am not going to try an interpret why, because your reasons for your grudge aren't important. That it clearly exists is. you are seeking to end-run the consensus here. You clearly have an agenda, and AGF doesn't mean overlooking people trying to game the system. Show me how I am wrong in my interpretation of your actions here, THF. I want to be wrong, but we both know I am not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with THF's statement that you are giving too much weight to James Cawley's hobby. He should not be included in the primary biography for James T. Kirk or the information box. Please reread the WP:Film and WP:Television citations I made and tell me exactly how you can make the argument that Cawley is in but Belushi and Carrey are out? All three should be out IMHO. Erikeltic (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You should have probably followed those conversations more closely. They actually agree that Cawley should be in, while Belushi, Carrey and thinly-veiled references like Zapp Brannigan belong in a cultural impact section (currently non-existent in the article). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember me? I'm the person you blocked for 24 hours over this topic. To quote James Brown, "I'm back." At any rate, as far as I see nobody (including myself) is saying that James Cawley shouldn't be included somewhere within the article. In fact, he should probably be in the portrayals and/or the pop culture/cultural influence portion. The debate is over whether or not he should be listed in the "Portrayed by" listing in the box. The discussion has implications for not just Star Trek, but many fictional characters that go far beyond whether or not James Cawley "does a good Kirk". You wrote in the deletion seciton that Hidden Frontier was often "painful" to watch. Some people may actually enjoy Hidden Frontier and at some point want to include all of those characters on the Trek biographies. Aside from your personal feelings, what makes their work (with just as much press as New Voyages) less substantial than that of Mr. Cawley? A clear line on fan fiction needs to be drawn and it's Captain Kirk that is "boldly going where no wiki has gone before." We all need to be very cautious and leave our personal feelings out of it. Erikeltic (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I remember you, but I think you have matters confused (maybe it was all the malformed complaints you filed); I didn't block you, though I heartily approved of it at the time. I hope it afforded you a better view of how to act.

Last issue first: while I have opinions regarding Hidden Frontier, you will never see me try to override an article to shove my viewpoint in. Cawley's performance is notable. As has been explained countless times to you (and the other anons, SPAs and contributors), there is a significant difference between a portrayal that spoofs an actor's previous portrayal and a serious treatment of the fictional character. Please re-read that last sentence, because I am tired of repeating it. Infoboxes are for those parts of the article that offer insight into the subject. A spoof or comedic bit does not do that. At best, the comedic bits were interpreting Shatner's interpretation and ham-acting, and did not address Kirk at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to review WikiProject:Films. You will see that this question was already addressed and fan portrayals of characters fall under the same category as spoofs and stunt doubles. Cawley should be included here, but not in the main section of the wiki. Erikeltic (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you misread what was said. Go back and check it out again, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe my interpretation is dead-on because it was pretty clearly stated. In both WP:Films and WP: Television someone asked if there was ever a reason to include non-studio actors in a fictional character's biography. In both locations Bignole & sgeureka stated that there was not. Please review both WPs once again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Question_about_character_spoofs_and_non-studio_portrayals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Question_about_character_spoofs.2Fsatires_and_non-studio_portrayals—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs)

Holy smokes, this is what the dispute is about? WP:LAME. I think it's pretty clear no one has a grudge about Cawley, and it's an assumption of bad faith to assume otherwise. I think what the TV and Films wikiprojects said is eminently reasonable. You can discuss other performances, but Cawley shouldn't be in the infobox. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, it isn't about whether some consider fan-films or Cawley unimportant, non-notable or whatever (though it seems pretty clear that there is significant bias against fan-films occurring from the always-vocal canonicity crowd); it is about those portrayals which actually focus on the fictional character - the subject of this article. To date, there have only been three serious treatments of Kirk: by Shatner, Cawley and soon Pine (in chronological order) - and as such, belong in the infobox. Everything else is but a riff on Shatner's portrayal, and that does not expand/enhance understanding of the subject of this article - sort of the point of Wikipedia. It isn't a list of everyone who ever parodied Shatner's portrayal, or of every single mention of Kirk in other media; that's trivia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen all of these films and my personal feelings on whether they should be included is the same, regardless of which ones I felt were good or bad. Your suggestion that the resistance is because people want to "pooh-pooh" fan fiction is false. The bottom line for me is that fan fiction is irrelevant when it comes to the primary biography of any fictional character. Today it's Captain Kirk because you feel that New Voyages/ Phase II holds more value than other fan-produced works of derivative fiction. Who will it be tomorrow, based on the precedent you want to set? Let's set this aside for a moment and I want you to think something: what happens if at some point in the future there is a New Voyages episode where "Captain Kirk" is overtaken by aliens who make him think he's Elvis Presley? Would that self-satisfying bit of "burning love" from the Elvis Kirk be enough for you to say, "Gee... maybe these people don't belong in the primary bios?" Now I'm sure you're going to point out how ridiculous that is, but to some die hard Trekis out there, all of the time travel, alternate universes, and mixed cast episodes that New Voyages have produced are just as ridiculous. There are great pieces of fan fiction out there (some you will love and hate), but IMHO nobody here can pick and chose which portrayal goes into the primary biographies if those works are unlicensed and not part of an official studio production. Fan fiction cannot and should not be given the same weight as studio produced works, good or bad. It is a slippery slope that could lead to a big problem for any fictional character with a cult following. So we either need to draw a line in the sand and include only serious studio sanctioned portrayals or take a tack from imdb.com and include every single actor to ever portray the character (including spoofs). That's the heart of the issue for me, so please don't misunderstand my intentions as they are quite good and not spurred by my feelings regarding fan films. Erikeltic (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See, that is the type of discussion I was expecting (except for all the Elvish crap - it's distracting). I think its clear where we digress. You think that we should draw the line at official/licensed portrayals, and hold that line for dear life.

In most instances, I would agree with you. However, here I do not. Here, we are presented with info that doesn't have all these fan versions to clamor through; we have three portrayals. Were there more, the slippery slope you are talking about would be a more applicable and appropriate argument. However, we do not have that situation here, and we do not have a crystal ball to tell us what the future holds. The portrayal in question - that of Cawley (though there exist a few others in the same boat) - is not some blithe, weird YouTube video of 'hotvulcanbisex' or whatever; we are talking about a considerable effort being expended over a substantial period of time. Were it not for the fact that this is a fan-film, I think its clear that no one would object to the inclusion. That it is a fan film means that it requires a higher standard, and this is where citations come into play. Most of the future ventures mused upon in the above post will likely not have citation from notable, reliable and neutral sources (we are lucky enough to have those here), so the slippery slope alluded to is easily avoided.

So, let go of the emotional baggage that this actor also sidelines as Elvis - its a recessionary period, and baby needs a new pair of shoes. Since Cawley isn't making any money off the ST:P2 gig, who are we to fault him for making a living. Seriously, would we be giving him this much shit were he a CPA?

Lastly, WP:IAR is also a pretty nifty rule here. So what if the fan film in question and Cawley aren't owned by Paramount? Last I checked, we don't work for Paramount, and our notability doesn't run past their billing office. If IAR bugs you (and it bugs me sometimes), remember that Paramount has given the nod to the contributions of the fan-film genre in keeping the franchise alive (and after Enterprise, fan-films were working overtime to do just that). Cawley is recognizable person at sci-fi conventions - he was cast in the new ST film precisely because he is notably known as Kirk - so I think that he is notable enough for inclusion as one of only three portrayals in over 40 years. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains that you are giving too much weight to fan fiction and one man's hobby. As far as the Elvis remarks being relevant, Cawley still had the "Elvis haircut" in the first two episodes of New Voyages. He had to in order to keep his day job. Should we also include a section within Kirk's wiki about his Elvis haircut or are we supposed to forget that because it was necessary for Cawley to work in real life? In addition, Cool Hand Luke raised a very interesting point using Sherlock Holmes as an example. Cawley and company feel that the Star Trek characters should be treated like characters within Shakespeare and that anyone can play them. Who here then decides which portrayals are worthwhile and which ones aren't? You keep insisting that Cawley's is the only other "serious" Kirk aside from Shanter's [and presumably] Pine's, but New Voyages (now discussed ad nauseam) episodes do not in any way measure up to the original (writing, acting, direction) despite your solitary insistance that they do. Because they do not measure up, his intention to portray Kirk seriously is irrelevant in the face of mainstream reception and the dismissal of Trek formatting requirements. New Voyages makes a great effort and has some stunning special effects, but they should not be given the same weight for all of these reasons and because it opens the door to too many issues in the future. Those are my two main problems with including fan fiction in the infobox and primary biography. Non-studio actors don't belong in the infobox alone unless we include all actors, including spoofs. I don't think either of us support that idea, but it's the only way to be neutral on the topic. Allowing any non-studio actors in the biobox or primary biography will open a huge can of worms later.

Here is a great review of Star Trek: New Voyages. http://www.tilzy.tv/review-of-star-trek-new-voyages.htm One quote that may catch your attention is, "If you’re looking for an extension of the original series, you’ll find this to be pretty great for the low-budget fanfic that it is. But if you look at it as a parody, you’ll probably enjoy it a lot more." Erikeltic (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, we are giving appropriate weight, not too much, and not too little. Whether its one man's hobby, or whether the lead had hair issues is immaterial. Seriously, those sorts of arguments are easily deconstructed: most actors pursue their careers supplementing their income doing something else that actually pays the bills. Ask around. And do we really want to get into hair issues? Really? Shatner wore a toupee throughout the entire series and every film - that's documented. Does the fact that he wore one invalidate his performance of Kirk? I think not. The logic in pursuing such - 'well, they wouldn't have Elvis hair in the 24th century' is so incredibly flawed that I feel I am wasting bandwidth in pointing out that the caesar hairstyle has been around for oh, at least two thousand years. So, let's avoid that entire train of logic, shall we? It's distracting and immaterial to the meat of the conversation and more importantly to the substance of the character - the actual subject of the article. However, feel free to add it to the Cawley article. :)

As well, the argument that if we include non-studio actors, we have to include every performance of Kirk is doubly flawed. First of all, note how I have mentioned on at least half a dozen occasions that there is a difference between actually portraying a character and mimicking another's performance. I wasn't saying that to be wordy; the first expands the understanding of the character, and the latter does not. It doesn't make the latter unimportant, it just makes it less synoptic than a serious treatment.

And with respect, that anti-fan film stripe I mentioned earlier is showing through a bit here. No one said that the New Voyages (now called Phase 2) episodes were better written that TOS - I know for a fact that I didn't (though I would put In Harm's Way up against Spock's Brain any day of the week, and twice on Sunday). This isn't about the quality or lack thereof of the fan series - until you get that, you are going in circles. What you need to focus on is not your personal views on fan films or Cawley (since your personal opinions, being non-neutral, have no place in Wikipedia), but instead how Cawley is one of only three portrayals of the character in over 40 years. I am not saying the performance is Oscar-calibre, but really, the same could be said for Shatner's performance, as well.

And again, unless you are hiding a crystal ball (hint" read the linked file, as it isn't an article about the device but the practice of fortune-telling in Wikipedia) on your end, you cannot foretell of any negative repercussions. If anything, we are discovering out that inclusion of fan media has to meet a fairly higher set of criteria than most other information. Without a doubt, inclusion here doesn't represent the beginning of a slippery slope, since we are following Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

1. utilizing a cited reference to an uncommon phenomena and an even more uncommon portrayal. That's notable.
2. It's a cited performance by outside media. That makes it verifiable,and
3. noting these sources prevents us from straying into original research.
4. These sources are mainstream and helpful in understanding the portrayal. That makes it both reliable and neutral.
5. There is no specific rule stating that we cannot do add these notable and uncommon performances, so adding it is in keeping with both our guiding principles that ignoring preconceptions is not always a bad thing - especially when adding it contributes to the understanding of the character.

And thanks for the citation about the web-series. While its fairly off-topic for this issue and discussion (again, questiosn as to the quality of the web series are overwhelmingly unimportant when compared to the notability of the series and the portrayal of the character in question). You should probably add the source to the ST: Phase 2 article discussion; I am sure they would appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, if you mean what you wrote, "those sorts of arguments are easily deconstructed" then please agree to the mediation request I sent you this morning. As I recall, you've been asking for mediation since this discussion started, so here is your chance. Deconstruct it in mediation since none of us are getting anywhere here. Thanks. Marfoir (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't avoiding mediation, Marfoir (and yeah, I've been following the commentary you've been making about me elsewhere). I was waiting for you to start a section noting the mediation. For some odd reason, you haven't done that yet. Myself, i was awaiting other participants.

Until then, care to address the post? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so Arcayne. I appreciate the offer, but I don't think continued discussion between the two of us is productive at this point. Let's just take it to mediation and live with what happens. Thanks. Marfoir (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Now do you want to try, since the mediation appears to have been rejected? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection request

FYI, I have requested temporary full protection of this article. It helped me and Arcayne cool down and settle things in January; hopefully it'll work again. --EEMIV (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it might. Far too many stupid sock-puppets making their way here, not to mention a bit of wiki-hounding as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please place a protection on the Spock page was well. I attempted to make that wiki conform with the rest of the Star Trek wikis, but Arcayne (talk · contribs) has decided to turn that into another edit war. It's my feeling that until we have a consensus, all of the Star Trek wikis should match. As it seems that the consensus is currently leaning to studio-only (and all other Star Trek wikis are studio only) it made sense to make Spock's page conform with the rest of Wikipedia. Erikeltic (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclinations toward consensus != consensus. As I posted on your talk page, bold edits that are reverted should be subject of discussion, not counter(-counter-counter-etc.) reversion. The Spock page won't be protected unless/until it gets into 3RR territory. Hopefully, you will heed my advice on your talk page and abide by WP:BRD. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about this?

Normally, editors are supposed to resolve the dispute during discussion. We should do that.

Does anyone have a simple criteria for determining what actors should be listed? TV and Films suggest using the official productions (except in very strange cases like the James Bond movie with dubious rights). That seems simple and intuitive to me. What is the proposed alternative that would include Cawley? Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said previously, there are three possible ways to resolve the infobox: "Just mainstream portrayals" (i.e., Shatner, Pine); I can see an argument for "Every performance seen by more than X people" (Shatner, Pine, probably Belushi, maybe Carrey); and I can see an argument for "Every notable performance" (Shatner, Pine, Belushi, Carrey, maybe Cawley). The TV and Film Wikiprojects limit it to mainstream performances. The only place I see unusual mentions are in the infobox for James Bond (character)--and, even there, it's far from clear to me why David Niven and Barry Nelson are in and Woody Allen and Bob Holness are out, and all of the performances noted as "unofficial" (and many of the ones left out) are far more notable than Cawley's. THF (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
And new comments continue to be added to Talk:James_T._Kirk#Defining_the_scope_of_the_infobox. It's not clear to me that anyone is arguing for inclusion of Cawley beyond Arcayne. I wish I knew why he's so sure consensus is with him on this. THF (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might actually listen to my reasoning; it might not seem so esoteric, then. Notable characterizations - those that actually advance understanding of the subject characterization - should be included. In short, if they play the role seriously, and not simply riff a previous actor's portrayal, they are included. We do not include those folk who riff on the character's portrayal by another actor - which is, incidentally, why we exclude Carrey and Belushi. I am not saying they aren't known parodies of Shatner's take on the character, but that's just it - they are parodies of Shatner's performance, not of James T. Kirk. Cawley's is not a riff on Shatner, but an interpretation of Kirk, just like Pine's. I am not suggesting that the parodies don't belong in a Cultural Impact section, they do - and prolly in the William Shatner article as well. Where they don't belong is in the infobox of this article - because their portrayals do not add to the understanding of the fictional character.

Unfortunately, I see - and this might be mightily unfair of me - is editorial bias against a fanfilm portrayal. And, to quote Carrey's old show, In Living Color, 'Homey don't play that.' - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Doctor (Doctor Who)'s info box. Only the 11 studio actors who have played The Doctor on film or television are listed in the "portrayed by" (the 11th has yet to appear on-screen). None of the voice actors that played The Doctor only' on stage or in the audio dramas are listed in the info box. Instead, there is a wiki List_of_actors_who_have_played_the_Doctor which includes studio actors, spoofs, stage, audio, and even has a nod to a fan film called "The Millennium Trap." Erikeltic (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand why the parodies are excluded, but I think James Bond is instructive. Those "unofficial" films were only unofficial because they were for-profit studio productions without the rights (although in at least one case, they believed that they did have the rights). I think the James Bond actors are the fringe of what would be accepted. Imagine that there was a studio in China that decided to make new episodes of Star Trek, but didn't even pretend to have the rights. Would we include those actors in the box? I think not. This case of high-end fan fiction seems even weaker to me. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is calling it high-end fan fiction, CHL; while production values have been noted as adhering to those of the original series (you mind if I ask if you have actually seen one of these episodes? It'd be easier for you to understand my point if you were to), no one is using the debatable argument that its the best-known of the ST fan films. The point that was being made is that it is the only portrayal of Kirk outside those of Shatner and (presumably) Pine that endeavor to seriously portray the character. It is the serious portrayal of the character that increases the understanding of the subject matter, and why it is notable enough for inclusion. Until Pine, Cawley's portrayal was the only other one since Shatner's creation of the role in 1966. That's over forty years without any new interpretations of the character that didn't include a Shatner-inspired riff.

And, to note the Chinese-produced example, if it was a notable, serious treatment of the character that treated the subject matter seriously, then yeah, it would be included as well. Odd that you would use China: they have over 1 billion people and, up until recently, they didn't have that many tv channels. A star Trek production made over there would have been watched by upwards of 150 million folk (out of a potential 1.3 billion); I am being conservative because not everyone has a tv there, but the notability of the event would have been overwhelming. We don't act as the watchdogs for Paramount or anyone else; whether a product is official or unofficial isn't our concern, any more than truth is. The wiki isn't for sale , and that means we can note that something is official or unofficial, but we do not limit content based upon that; doing so would be a sidestep away from neutrality.

The long and the skinny of this argument is clear: either Cawley's portrayal is true to the character, or its a parody. I think its the former, and not the latter. As such, it expands the understanding of the character in the same way that only Shatner and Pine do. Ergo, the portrayal belongs in the infobox. As the oft-mentioned other wikiproject page discussions dovetail with this understanding, it is reinforced by a larger opinion that it shold be included outside the scope of this discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:46, March 16, 2009 (UTC)

The character is not up for grabs though; it has one source, and all other sources necessarily take off of the original source. Compare Sherlock Holmes. There are a lot of unofficial sequels and serializations of this character throughout the world. They are almost all serious and they almost all "advance our understanding of the character," but the box only lists those that were authorized. We should not be the arbiters of what is and is not a serious portrayal. Instead, we should recognize that unofficial productions are not strictly speaking even the same character. Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Call it an olive branch, but FWIW I stared a wiki called List_of_actors_who_have_played_James_Kirk. I borrowed the formatting used in the Doctor Who actors list. Hopefully between all of us here we can populate this template and include it as a link somewhere within Kirk's biography (perhaps under cultural influences, after a blurb about Cawley?). Erikeltic (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the above, Erikeltic; Cawley's portrayal differs from that of Belushi or Carrey in that the letter two were not portraying Kirk, but Shatner as Kirk. An interpretation of another character's interpretation is mimicry, not actual new interpretation. Cawley's approach is closer to the original interpretation of the character. Therefore, while the article is interesting, it is fundamentally flawed in its understanding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there seems to be overwhelming consensus from everyone here (except you) that fan-actors do not belong in the primary biographies. I understand that you are a fan of New Voyages and have strong feelings about it, however, the issue at hand is more important than one production or one fan actor. As much as you enjoy STNV, there are undoubtedly people who do not (just as there are some who enjoyed Hidden Frontier). You wrote to THF or Marfoir that parts of Hidden Frontier were "excruciating" to watch. I couldn't agree more. So who draws the line between what has merit and what does not? You did not address Luke's questions (or any other reasonable argument against Cawley being in the bio) that I honestly believe are worth answering in order for you to defend your position. Luke's question point about a production company in China making unlicensed Star Trek episodes shouldn't be glossed over. I have to agree with Cool Hand Luke and virtually everyone else here. The possibility of "unlicensed" / fan material being given as much weight (no matter how well intentioned it is) is a terrifying prospect that could easily spiral dozens of fictional biographies out of control. This is where it should stop. Erikeltic (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are going to find yourself in a fantastically better place if you simply stop trying to assume what I am a fan of - you haven't done a smashing job as a mind-reader thus far. I don't have "strong feelings" about any fan production where it impacts inclusion or removal. My personal opinions have no basis in the wiki, just like your clear opinions dismissing fan-based material, or equating it with comedic material. Your personal preferences don't count. If something is notable and has solid citation, in it goes. It's pretty much that easy, just like discriminating between comedic material and serious material. This isn't middle school; it isn't a popularity contest.

Additionally, I think that you perhaps have a misapprehension about consensus: two different wikiprojects forum-shopped for input have returned with the conclusion that while fan material doesn't normally belong in the infobox, some does. Add to that that the "most everyone else" you refer to are THF, yourself and your socks, I think that you might be seeing a consensus against inclusion that isn't there.

Er, what point by CHL did I not address? I thought I pretty much nailed it. Maybe re-read the post? I didn't "gloss over" the bit about China. I pointedly said that it would be immaterial, and actually undermines his main argument. Licensed or unlicensed, that isn't a part of criteria for inclusion or dismissal. There, I've said it yet again.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you elected to delete my comments (calling them a personal attack, while making one of your own) I will rephrase this for you: As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to dignify your baseless accusations and sarcasm. I've made my position clear. Go read WP:AGF again before you respond to me if you have anything new to add. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Read it, loved it, hope they make a feature film out of it. Now, care to head on back to the discussion and address the points I have? If not, you don't need to reply; we'll go on without you. However, I'd love for you to contribute in a positive, constructive way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made many points (as have others) that you have ignored. If you'd like address those points, by all means..... otherwise, I see no point in debating with you further when you have been wiki-hounding me and editing my points within this discussion to suit your own purposes. The fact remains that I believe fan portrayals do not deserve any more weight than spoofs. (period)Erikeltic (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) Err, what points of yours (or others) have I ignored? I actually thought I got them all. Could I trouble you to enumerate them, and I will be delighted to address them singly or jointly. You might want to take the time to learn what wiki-hounding actually is, Erikeltic: you added the link to that page here, inviting us to all look at it. Were you expecting it to remain untouched, especially when it was created as a pointy argument to defend your point of view? Come on, now - that isn't how Wikipedia works. And the only editing I have done of your posts here is to remove over the top personal attacks. If you don't to chat, that's sad, but understandable. This is a place for reasoned discussion. Feel free to contribute when you feel able. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note : Since I began working on List_of_actors_who_have_played_James_Kirk it has been significantly vandalized to promote debatable positions here. At this point, I can no longer endorse that wiki as it is being used to further a position within this discussion and is no longer neutral. Please look at the last version I did if you'd like to see what I had hope to accomplish. Erikeltic (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you areunclear as to the definition of vandalism. As it was being used as a point discussion - much like an anti-Semitic pointing to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as concrete support for their pov edits (though this is an extreme comparison) - edits are necessary. Others beside myself have contributed, shaping the article. Again, if you aren't prepared to have your contributions edited mercilessly, don't contribute them, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan Fiction should not be included in the infobox or the primary biographies for fictional characters, regardless of their quality or following. I have stated my reasons for this, you have stated yours. As far as your edits (and following me to other locations) I will refrain from commenting at this time. Erikeltic (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases, fan fic should not be added to the infobox. However, as has been explained exhaustively before, we are presented with a fairly unique situation here. We aren't talking about slashfic, or comedic riffs on an actor's portrayal. Between 1966 and 2008, there have been only two serious portrayals of Kirk: Shatner and Cawley. In itself, that is notable. As such it not only belongs in the body of the article, but because no other portrayal has expanded the character's history in a valuable and relevant way, it belongs in the infobox as well. The cut-off, of course would be prominence of the portrayal. If 20 different fan films had 20 different serious portrayals of Kirk, we'd have to choose one based on the amount of media coverage it had. Such has been used here; we have input from reliable, unbiased media outlets citing Cawley's performance as Kirk.

Lastly, no one is hounding you, or comparing you to an anti-Semite. The argument was used to compare your created article being used as a viewpoint to enforce your opinion. You invited us there to see the article (which shouldn't have been used as a pointy way to express your personal pov in the first place); you cannot be offended when it is edited by myself and others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The better method than splitting hairs over those 20 future fan films is to draw a simple line in the sand and be neutral to the character. That line is either "all portrayals are in, regardless of merit (like IMDB does)" or "just sanctioned studio portrayals" which is the better choice IMHO. I think so far the only exception that anyone has come up with to that rule is James Bond's unlicensed films. None of the other Star Trek characters (except Spock) have non-studio actors listed, the audio/stage only actors playing the Doctor in Doctor Who aren't listed in the infobox (despite being licensed, canon, and money makers), and doing anything else opens the door to a lot of problems and discussions just like this. Erikeltic (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that is an overkill approach. We are not in the pocket of film studios. Therefore, we use a different set of criteria for inclusion. The differentiation being made here is that - unlike the articles for McCoy, Uhura, etc. serious, extensive portrayals have been made of this character in the realm of fan-film. Characters other than Kirk, Spock and Chekov haven't been explored with as much depth (or media citation) in fan productions. Now, you are allowed to disagree over the canonicity/validity/rightness of those portrayals but, as we do not weigh canonicity here in Wikipedia, it is a poor argument to start from. Since this portrayal of Kirk is one of only three ever made, it is notable in its own right: it expands the understanding of Kirk as a character, not as a caricature. As such, it should be in the infobox as it adds info in a valuable and relevant way.

Since we don't have a crystal ball, we have no way as to what sort of future interpretations might be created, or if any of those spitballed 20 would be notable. We take stuff as it comes our way, and judge it on its own merits. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

Did we reach a consensus that I missed? The last time I looked, we were still discussing the format of the infobox & yet it has been changed moments after the wiki's protection expired. Erikeltic (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was simply reverted back to its preexisting condition before the edit-warring started over its inclusion. That, too, is how Wikipedia works. The preexisting version remains in place until there is sufficient reason for its removal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Back at you. Leave the preexisting version as it was until this is resolved--not the version you prefer. Erikeltic (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, look at the version before folk (including the socks) started purging Cawley. It was that way for months before that, a consensus hammered out. I am not suggesting consensus cannot change, but there has to be consensus for it to change. Therefore, it stays in the version it was before the argument began over the canonicity of the portrayal began. I am sure you understand this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A restoration "to its preexisting condition" would not have added Bennett. Either stick it as-was or leave it as it was before protection came in. That you promptly altered the contentious content so soon after the edit protection lifted might be seen as antagonistic; many thanks to the other editors for not promptly undoing Arcayne's change. --EEMIV (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right EEMIV it was antagonistic, but it was Arcayne that edited it, not me. Erikeltic (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I was addressing him -- it's normal to adjust indenting to indicate to whom/what one is responding. I indented using two ::s because Arcayne used one : in his first response, to which I was replying. If I were responding to your previous comment, I would have used 4 :s -- as I'm doing now, but for a different fork on the conversation thread.. Meh, whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I misunderstood your intent. Erikeltic (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand that you were addressing me, either, EEMIV. I thought, in reinstating the pre-kerfuffle edit, that Bennett wasn't a point of contention for anyone. If he is as well, I can ask the protecting editor to adjust that out, making it truly an earlier version. Yea or nay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee regarding this topic. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/James_T_Kirk, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Marfoir (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation was denied. This is a pretty clear cut case with obvious consensus over the objection of an editor simply refusing to accept that he is wrong. It's time to just move on, and if he continues to revert the article despite such an overwhelming consensus, look into dispute resolution for that editor. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan film inclusion poll

Let's conduct a little poll without any comments as to why you are voting one way or the other. Maybe this can help us get back on track.

Should an actor from a well produced and well followed fan series be included in the primary biography and/or infobox for the fictional character they are portraying or should any information on that fan-series actor be kept in a cultural impact section? Please answer cultural impact or main biography.

1. cultural impact. Marfoir (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. It should only be under cultural impact, and I wouldn't be upset if it disappeared entirely from this article. At best the fan series is a see also in the main star trek article, there is no vital reason to list the separate actors on separate character articles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Cultural impact only. Cool Hand Luke 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Cultural impact only, subject to the caveat below. THF (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. both, if necessary. The question is flawed, as some entries are both or neither. The book The Lost Years is not a Paramount product, and yet is both cultural impact (Riverside Iowa calls themself the birthplace of Kirk because of the novel naming it as such), and is also part of the main biography. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Cultural impact only; fan series are ill-representative of a main character in a major media franchise. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we aren't in the pay of Paramount. In fact, the character existed before Paramount was even an entity. Most fan series ill-represent the character being depicted. This particular fan film doesn't suffer from that particular problem in that it endeavors to remain true to the original series and concepts, as has been noted in various media. Again, we aren't speaking in generalities for the application of infobox entries - curiously enough, there is no codification of that - but rather of specifics. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan inclusion poll - the right question

Respectfully, it isn't - and shouldn't be - one or the other, and that cocks up the results. The infobox is an index of the article. If it is in the infobox, it is already in the article. Maybe you weren't aware of that. I don't think there is any argument that the info should be mentioned in a cultural impact sub-section. The only disagreement is whether non-studio folk should be noted in the infobox under any condition. That's the sort of question you should be seeking poll results from. Therefore, this is the sort of question we should be asking:

Should an actor from a well produced and well followed fan series ever be included in the infobox for the fictional character they are portraying?

1. Sometimes, but in this case, Yes - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2. No, we shouldn't decide what is "well produced" and "well followed." If it's a licensed production, then it represents the character. If it's unlicensed (bootleg or fan), it does not—no more than a Sherlock Holmes knockoff book depicts that character. The owner decides who plays the character, not the fans, and certainly not Wikipedia editors. He may have a worthy performance, but it is not strictly speaking James T. Kirk. It's Cawley's Kirk. Cool Hand Luke 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Holmes presents an interesting quandary, since most of the original Conan Doyle work has slipped into the public domain. Sherlock Holmes in other media doesn't even have an infobox (perhaps because it would require dozens of entries from Viggo Larson to Robert Downey Jr.), so they've avoided the problem. Interestingly, there isn't even a "actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes" timeline box the way there is for James Bond. THF (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's a different media, but on the Holmes infobox, it only counts literary appearances by Doyle himself—in that case, he was owner of the rights. If he had authorized another to continue the series, I believe it would include all of the books, perhaps like Popeye (the earliest of which are public domain). It's not directly on-point because it's not an audiovisual media, but my point is that there are many, many "serious" unauthorized uses of characters, and I don't think we put any of them into infoboxes. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Because the resulting list would run down the page at over a dozen portrayals. The problem with CHL's reasoning here is that it is his personal viewpoint - and not that from a cited source (which actually says the opposite) - that the only portrayals of a character that count are those sponsored by license. It's an underdeveloped viewpoint; in this very article, we include information from books that do not have Paramount's viewpoint, and we include information about an Iowa town that considers itself - based on one of these "unlicensed" books - to be the birthplace of Kirk. Why do we include these? Why, because they are notable, that's why.

   Equally flawed is the reasoning that Cawley's Kirk is somehow less than Shotner's Kirk or Pine's Kirk. Of the three, Pine's Kirk is supposed to be significantly less than Roddenberry envisioned. So, if we are to use the same reasoning that CHL would like us to apply, OPine cannot be included as Kirk, either, as he is not depicting Kirk as envisioned either. We are supposed to look at the total subject of Kirk for this article. As there have only been 3 depictions of him in over 40 years, it is - frankly - soapboxing to keep Cawley out because his interpretation - as true to Roddenberry;s vision as Shatners' - is from a fan-film. Before someone rebuts that, please point out where, in our wiki rules or policies, it says we use lcensed characters only, and avoid notable information. It isn't there; I know, I've checked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   This discussion has already taken place. Your position has been deemed wrong. Why do you insist on continuing this debate? Maybe you should go read WP:Snow like somebody suggested to you earlier. It's been fun. Erikeltic (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I think I know that particular policy, having over 20,000 edits. Thanks for your opinion, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3. In this case, No. There is a hypothetical possibility in the future of user-produced content of fan-fiction matching or outstripping the notability of mainstream studios and official portrayals, so I'm not going to say "Never." But in 2009, I can't think of a single example of that, and Cawley isn't even close to that. THF (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4. No -- come on, let's get real... Fan projects are always going to be fan projects and nonnotable. And the personal attacks by the editor above are uncalled for, as always. DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just a comment, not a vote - "Fan projects are always going to be fan projects and nonnotable." is misguided at best - I have no interest in whether things go in infoboxes or not, but the New Voyages/Phase II series is clearly notable (based on the massive amounts of major, independent third-party coverage), as are quite a few other fan projects, such as Batman: Dead End or several of the films from The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   I strongly agree with this. I must also admit that THF is right that if a fan series eclipsed the original, we would include those portrayals in the infobox. I think we should ask what readers would expect. Certainly not satirical portrayals, but at the same time they wouldn't expect unauthorized portrayals either—unless those had surpassed the official ones. Cool Hand Luke 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   No one is saying that the fan series overshadowed the original. It did pick up where the original one left off (the second five year mission and all), and is the only other characterization that wasn't Shatner's in over 40 years. That's significant. And notable. And relevant. It is because of this dearth of actual portrayals that it belongs in the infobox. It is also why the similar fanfilms would probably be excluded from this - everybody and their little brother have played a Sith, or some Starfleet ship captain. No one has tried Kirk (except for Shatner) in forty years.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   I know no one is saying that, and that's the point. It's notable and relevant, and should be in the article, but I don't think we make an exception for this one even with the 40 years factoid. Readers would expect the official portrayals, which seem to be used exclusively on Film and TV projects. On Wikipedia, much of our policy is unwritten, and this seems to be a style guideline on these articles. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

5. No because fan portrayals require reliably sourced coverage, so just naming them in the infobox deprives the reader of context, especially the question, "Who?" On the other hand, official portrayals are far more indisputable, and being listed in the infobox is not challenged. That is the key difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   The context you are suggesting that the reader is being 'deprived of' is resolved in the body of the article. Simply naming Chris Pine does this as well, as the Star Trek film he is in has not been released yet. The challenge of infobox listing is due to a lack of policy on the topic, and not an indisputability issue. The infobox serves as a sort of index card for the article. Listing the people who have portrayed the character in live-action media seems in accordance with that idea, especially where there is a dearth of folk having done so, and the ones listed all are citable and notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just a reminder: Take a look at Doctor (Doctor Who)'s info box. Only the 11 studio actors who have played The Doctor on film or television are listed in the "portrayed by" (the 11th has yet to appear on-screen). None of the voice actors that played The Doctor only on stage or in the licensed audio dramas or stage productions are listed in the info box. Instead, there is a wiki called List_of_actors_who_have_played_the_Doctor which includes studio actors, spoofs, stage, audio, and even has a nod to a fan film called "The Millennium Trap." So at Doctor Who, even sanctioned performaces that did not appear on film or television are excluded. Erikeltic (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   And to counter that reminder, take a gander at James Bond (character); all of the actors to portray Bond appear in the infobox. Now, we could do something like that, listing as 'official' and 'unofficial' - that way, the anti-fan film folk get to list the official folk who played the role, while the rest of us get to list all three actors who have actually played the character. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, but didn't all of the unlicensed Bond characters actually appear in mainstream studio done media and not fan fiction? If memory serves me correctly, one of those film makers even thought they had the rights to do the movie. Since Kirk is a film/tv character - like Doctor Who - it sould seem reasonable to include actors from only licensed studio productions in film or television. Erikeltic (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

6. The idea of a "official"/"fan project" divide for articles is something that wikipedia shouldn't and doesn't care about. If the fan project is reported in reliable sources and meet our normal requirements for inclusion - then it goes in, that's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   I agree fully, but there are a lot of folk who are apparently of the opinion that all fan-films should be lumped together. A compromise seems in the best interests of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Everyone (except maybe User:DreamGuy) agrees that it gets in. The question is whether the actors name should be included in the infobox. Cool Hand Luke 17:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, DG is a fairly new visitor to the subject and article, he's likely here for another reason. That aside, I was responding to someone else when something I read some time ago rebounded with me. Why not list all three as we have in the James Bond (character) infobox? It would seem to neatly (and encyclopedically) resolve the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm "likely here for another reason"? So when you follow me to many articles you've never edited before to blind revert my edits for a number of years it's bad faith to say you're stalking me, but when I come here because the article about the guy is listed for AFD you want to suddenly dismiss what I say and call it hounding? Really, that's a serious accusation? Because if my actions could in any way be construed by you as not proper, your own actions would be off the scale violations by the same criteria. So you doing the exact behavior you accuse me of for years is just groovy by your standards, but me not actually doing it but stumbling across a situation where you can pretend I did and it's suddenly some horrible crime? Do you even stop to think about what you are saying before you say it? DreamGuy (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   I just love it when you accuse me of 'blind-reverting', DG! It hasn't gotten old in over a year! :) Frankly, I am just going to ignore your comments, since both you and I both know why you are really here. But thanks for proving my point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

7. No, never. Marfoir (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Absolutely not. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes, depending on notability. The question is unfairly phrased. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
10. No. It is not a licensed portrayal of a character. It doesn't matter how notable the portrayal is, it is not a licensed one. Including him in the cultural references section would be appropriate, given the level of coverage he has been given for those fan films. But the fact remains that it is not a licensed portrayal. Otherwise, why aren't we including all of the stuntmen who "portrayed" Kirk (and every other fictional character). I mean, at least they were part of official productions. It's because they were not really playing "Kirk".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential Compromise

How about this: using the template found at James Bond (character), we can list all the actors who have portrayed the character while noting those who are official and those who are not:

James T. Kirk/Archive 2
Portrayed by	Unofficial: James Cawley (2004-Present) Official: William Shatner (1966-2006) Chris Pine (2009) Jimmy Bennett (2009) (young Kirk)

Input? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to it. We have been talking about this for almost a week and I feel that we have arrived at consensus. As I wrote above, all of the unlicensed Bond actors actually appeared in film. One filmaker even thought he had the rights to do Bond as he started production. Finally, there is a far cry from an unlicensed Bond film to a derivative piece of fan fiction and fan fiction should be out. I think we've gone over this enough. Erikeltic (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that this has gone on for a week is that no one is willing to compromise, and there is no guideline or policy that governs the problem. I am breaking the stalemate and offering a compromise. It also went on because it was forum-shopped by yourself and others, seeking to 'ask the other parent'. Thanks for your opinion, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Voyages/Phase II is something of a different beast from fan fiction, tho. It's a professional production (albeit made by fans) that has the tacit approval of Paramount. Several of the episodes have been written and/or directed by people associated with legitmate Trek productions, and one episode (written by a professional) has been nominated for best script in the Nebula Awards, competing against other more mainstream media productions. Your continued use of terms such as "derivative" is beginning to show signs of bias o your part - you claim that others won't stop until they get their way - you're just as guilty here, Erikeltic. At least other editors are willing to compromise - can you at least do the same? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional - if such an infobox were to be adopted, however, the "official" portrayals should be listed first, above the "unofficial" ones... 19:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am listing it as it is in the Bond infobox; which was used as precedent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The three "unofficial" Bond movies are Casino Royale (Climax!), a television series that did have the rights, Casino Royale (1967 film), a satire movie that was probably licensed from the book rights, and not the film rights of EON, and Never Say Never Again, starring Sean Connery, where the producers believed they had the rights, EON did not, and the dispute was eventually resolved by the two companies falling into the hands of a common owner. All of these movies are "unofficial" in the sense that they were not part of the EON series, although they were based on rights from the book. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they didn't have a lot of web-based fan films back in those days. ;) Specifics aside, the infobox addresses official and unofficial portrayals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But they were in fact all licensed (at least they thought they were). Readers would also expect to see Never See Never Again in the list—indeed, it's been adopted by the now-common rights holder. Cool Hand Luke 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I offered a compromise three days ago in the form of List of Actors to have Played Kirk which would taken the Doctor (Doctor Who) approach and placed a link to the list at the bottom of the infox. The list would have included all actors (including spoofs) that have played James T. Kirk. You and Arcayne decided to rework the entire page so Cawley would be given far more weight and between the two of you, you effectively reworked the page to further your side of the debate here. If you want to compromise, I again offer you that compromise, providing Cawley is separated into a "notable fan fiction" section and is in no way given equal weight to William Shatner.

Here is the definition of "derivative work" in case you were curious:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

The fact that I have referred to STPII as "derivative" is not an insult or a sign of bias. It is a fact, not an insult. Erikeltic (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we go again, labelling your opponents as conspirators. Your "version" of what happened is incorrect. I came upon this through my watchlist - saw the discussion, and attempted to present a compromise position. You almost immediately called the edits vandalism. There was no collusion, and I certainly wasn't part of the debate at the time. I'm sorry someone doesn't completely agree with you on all points, but that's life. Your "compromise" is you, once again, demanding that only your interpretation of things is the only one that matters. Sorry, sonny, but that's not how the game is played. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind how that page is set up. Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't really talking about that page right now, Erikeltic; too many folk thought it was a pointy creation to serve as s touchstone for a personal viewpoint. And you will note that the article uses as its placeholder image that of Shatner as Kirk. Listing Cawley along with Kirk and Pine (who is in scheduled film release, and technically not even add-able until the film is released) doesn't render undue weight to Cawley. It simply points out a notable portrayal. That it occurred in a different medium is immaterial, just as officialness is equally immaterial. Notable appearances should be listed. As there are only three of them, it isn't undue weight to list them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. The "unofficial" listings on the James Bond page were at least real non-fan productions. You might have an argument if that article listed the people who played James Bond in school plays, but it doesn't. We don't include that little fat kid with the toy light saber who got famous on YouTube in the list of actors who played Luke Skywalker either. Come on, give it a rest already. We've got consensus. We don't need any fake "compromise" in which you get what you want anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, why am I not surprised? The main problem with your reasoning is that we aren't talking about the Star Wars kid or people who played Kanes Bond in school plays (there are plays about Bond?) You equate fan-films with someone with a handicam videotaping their cat doing tricks. Clearly, we aren't discussing that. And as for consensus, perhaps maybe read up on what consensus is. A key component is compromise; I am offering it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A true compromise would be a setup like Doctor (Doctor Who) - or does compromise to you mean giving into your demands? I'm just curious. Erikeltic (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask that again without the uncivil comment, and you might get a response. Without it, your need for an answer will go unfulfilled. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The reason the "unofficial" portrayals of Bond are on top of the "official" portrayals is because they are first, chronologically. It is utterly mysterious to me what reason justifies Arcayne's decision to put Cawley ahead of Shatner. In any event, I oppose for reasons I've previously stated: Cawley's performance is not notable qua performance the way the unofficial Bond portrayals were, but only as a hey-isn't-that-weird human-interest story. If Cawley had simply devised a fan-fiction space opera, no one would have paid attention. And, contrary to Arcayne's claims that just means I'm biased against amateur performances, I note that in an age where it is not especially unusual for a couple of unknown twenty-somethings to make a $2000 cartoon and get a development contract to create a tv series or get a movie deal from developing a humorous 30-second commercial, it is quite telling that the best Cawley can do for himself is a role as a non-speaking extra in the actual movie. THF (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, it wasn't by design that the Unofficial entrants were listed first; I simply copied the format used elsewhere. If folk want the unofficial portrayals listed after the official ones, I don't really give a fig; I had previously opted for chronological order anyway. As for the rest of it, I find it kinda telling that someone claims to have no bias and yet bilge it forth over the next sentences. Lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per others. The consensus is clear to exclude fan portrayals from the infobox. Far too many words have been wasted with this discussion when we could have been doing article-building elsewhere. Let's close the matter and move on. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Second that motion to close. No one disagrees that he should be covered in the article; I don't understand the incivility. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus, but I guess the anti-fan bias is a bit too much to overcome. I consider the reasoning behind it fundamentally flawed and extraordinarily, detrimentally stupid, but similar acts have occurred before in Wikipedia. The nifty thing about the wiki is that it is eventually self-correcting. Everything stupid can be made smart again eventually. Of course, then it gets stupid again. I will abide by the consensus for now. I predict that this topic will come up again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

With the resolution of the dispute, I'm taking this off my watch-list. Let me know if there is a questionable claim that the consensus no longer exists. THF (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know when it comes up again, THF. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All the way to the end, you're still going with that nonsensical "anti-fan bias" chip resting firmly on your shoulder when that has nothing to do with the decision. If this issue does come up again - and I'm sure it would be you that brings it up again - I will be here watching, as will others I'm sure. Like you told THF at the start of this when he pointed out your position was wrong, expect resistance. Erikeltic (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of the poll questions, or even the compromise are fair. Neither addresses the fundamental criterion for inclusion in the article. Notability. I don't think production quality or cannon or authenticity of it should be a point of argument here. The point should be whether Cawley's portrayal is notable enough. I wouldn't matter if we were talking about a Popsicle stick with Shatner's face taped to the tip, if the stick is notable, it should be included in the info box or wherever. The whole Phase II/New Voyages thing has stood out enough in Hollywood that the original actors and screenwriters though it notable enough to participate in it, why is it not noteworthy enough for a simple info box entry on Wikipedia? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that I am new to this entire subject. Generally speaking I have an open mind as to notability and inclusion in infoboxes, but I am hard pressed to figure out how inclusion of "fan films" and their performers is justified under standard Wiki practices and rules. So I would not agree with this proposal. I really wish that some of the enterprise and energy shown here could be devoted to improving the many notable and important articles on motion picture related subjects that are languishing as stubs. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That it's a "fan film" is not even the point. The fact is that it's a notable series of films, whom even George Takei and Walter Koenig, amongst others, have participated in. I don't know of a fan film in history where the so many of the actors from the original series/films took such an active role in its production. That's pretty significant, and should be the sole reason for it's inclusion. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable in what sense? I'm not acquainted with Star Trek and am probably one of the few people in the hemisphere who have not seen one episode, so I don't know any of the actors you mention. However, the question that is posed relates to people who, as I understand them, would not be notable, and relating to "fan films" that likewise are not notable under Wiki criteria as I understand them. Honestly, I just fiddled with an article on an undeniably notable actor who has a really horrible teeny little article. I think we need to rethink our priorities a little here. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable in that actors from the original series have reprized their roles for the fan film. The two actors I mentioned are Sulu and Checkov respectively, two of the main cast of the original series who came back to this series to do entire episodes surrounding their old characters. Many actors from the old series have also taken parts in the films. (Am I correct in that Majel Barret Roddenberry lent her voice to the voice overs of the "Next Time on Phase II" sequences?) Quite a few of the actors from the old series have made guest appearances. Episodes were either written or directed by the original writers/directors of the series. I don't see how that's not notable, and with Cawley being the star of each of those episodes, I don't see how he couldn't be a notable portrayal of Kirk.

As an aside, my priorities will be to categories I have knowledge of. I can't very well flesh out article in Wikipedia if I know nothing about it. Besides, I'm not a person who believes that anyone should get special priority because their an older, or "better" or more well known actor/writer/teacher/etc then another. If you have special verifiable knowledge of another subject, by all means flesh that out. But this talk page isn't for the promulgation of those other articles. It's for the discussion and betterment of this one fictional character's biography. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Above you said that literally everything notable should be in the box. That doesn't really make sense. The whole article is notable, but all of these facts don't belong in the box, which is a capsule summary. The film is certainly notable, but we don't list it as an appearance in the box. Similarly, the Harry Potter character doesn't list the voice talent on the books on tape, radio programs, or anything else—just the most defining performances. These are determined by the studio, which is still producing depictions. (Incidentally, I think the childhood Kirk can easily be cut from the box). Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is light years away from anything I said or intimated. Please re-read what I've written. I don't know what you mean by "The film is certainly notable, but we don't list it as an appearance in the box" —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You said "if we were talking about a Popsicle stick with Shatner's face taped to the tip, if the stick is notable, it should be included in the info box or wherever." I think that's incorrect. Even a notable popscicle stick should not go in the box. The box isn't about notability, it's about listing the agreed upon and essential facts about the character. Fan films are neither. It might be notable, but it's not for the box. Cool Hand Luke 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jedi, my comment on other neglected areas was not directed at you or any editor personally. I'm new to this whole area. I was just surprised that that "fan films" and their actors are in Wikipedia at all, or in infoboxes on notable subjects such as the Kirk character. My opinion is that infoboxes should be limited only to commercial studio productions of films portraying Kirk, as opening it up to fan film actors is a slippery slope. Theoretically I could film one of these, star in it, and get my local paper to write about it, which makes it "notable" and I'm in the infobox. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically I could write a book, have it published by a major company and have it written about in my local paper. That, in of itself, doesn't make it notable, whether or not it was published by an major, established book publisher. Conversely, a book self published, if it garnered a lot of attention from the media and the publishing world, should get an article. It's the kind of attention something gets that determines whether something is notable enough for an article. Not whether it's official, or endorsed, but if it's notable. One newspaper article doesn't make a movie notable, I agree. But a regular series of a recreated TV show, with large portrayals by the original cast (the seemingly large budget notwithstanding)? The star of that is notable (.Cawley is even going to have a small role in the upcoming Star Trek film.) Maybe you should take a look at the website so you can better understand where I'm coming from. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(re-indent) Just a thought: since this discussion involves an infobox, shouldn't this be discussed in the applicable talk page of either the infobox template, or perhaps the Films (or TV) Project? There was a mention made in the Project talk page, which is how I found out about this. I was thinking that maybe it would be helpful for more non-involved editors to add their views to this subject. We've had other infobox discussions in this and the Actors and Filmmakers project, most recently on whether to add special effects people to the infobox. It might be desirable to discuss it there, so that there can be uniform standards applicable to all similar situations. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Global Consensus

FYI for everyone interested and/or anyone who believes that consensus has been reached. Apparently what happens here is irrelevant in other Star Trek wikis. Please see the constant changes made here: [Revisions] Do we actually now need to go through this entire process again in Spock just because one editor refuses to accept that the consensus is fan portrayals belong in the cultural impact section of a ficitonal biography. Seriously? Erikeltic (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you keep reverting is a picture usage. As far as I know, the infobox has remained consistent with this one. Sigh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a weight issue and consensus has been reached on this issue. Yet you keep changing the wiki. Erikeltic (talk)

Sigh. Again, you keep using terms that you are unfamiliar with. I have over 20,000 edits to your what - 200? The ""global consensus" you speak of - and yes, you are actually misusing that term (I will assume good faith that you simply don't know what that is, and aren't trying to be manipulative) - applies to the infobox. You keep talking about a 'Cultural impact' section. Go ahead and start one here, since there are a lot of eyes on this. Stop making pointy edits elsewhere. Put your efforts where you say you want to put them. I think I'm about done talking to you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. You won't/can't admit when you're wrong. The number of edits we each have doesn't mean anything. The bottom line is: you were wrong about the infobox and you are wrong about where the weight of fan fiction should go. Here I thought we had been over this, but apparently we need to talk about it again. Your edit warring in Spock is proof of that.... Erikeltic (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You rather prove my point. Indeed, it is not about who has more edits; however, the overwhelming disparity (of over 20k edits) should indicate that the more experienced editor knows what they are talking about a wee bit more than the newbie. The more experienced editor wouldn't claim that the editor on the minority side of consensus isn't "wrong". It is simply that his arguments did not win purchase with others. In this case, it was a consensus based on feelings, not guidelines. I am content to sit and wait for the infobox issue to cause more problems than it solves. I disagree with it, but I am abiding by consensus. Your edits in Spock, moving an image around, haven't been discussed in the article discussion there, and have been reverted by others. Now, focus on developing your abilities as an editor, learnin g the policies, and not treating Wikipedia like a battlefield. If you do this, you might be around for a while. If you choose to keep stalking editors around who you don't like, and canvassing, socking and meatpuppeting, you're probably going to end up banned.

You don't have to respond to this, as this personal discussion serves absolutely no purpose. Since you have nothing to say I want to hear, and you've banned me from your talk page, I think we can safely assume that we aren't going to find any common ground. Just stay away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The more experienced editor wouldn't claim that the editor on the minority side of consensus isn't "wrong". How many times have you used the word WRONG within your edit summaries or discussions here? I prove your point? You prove mine. But I do agree with you on one issue. We aren't going to find any common ground. So I am not going to have another epic debate with you because expecting reasonable behavior from you would be a mistake on my part. I am going to take this to Project Star Trek and allow others to deal with you. (Period). Erikeltic (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do that - its what you were told to do days ago. And as for my edit summaries calling you wrong, it was addressing your misuse of the wrong argument, or that your argument misaddressed the issue at hand (not to worry; you weren't the only one to do so). Discussion isn't wrong, and your choice of an opposing view wasn't either. Your process of doing so was. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I will. Erikeltic (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding the word "performance" at the end of a quote

There have been a few reverts regarding the following quote:

"the spirit of Kirk is very much alive and well in Chris Pine"'s performance.

While a minor point and although I understand the motivation behind this phrasing I also find it inaccurate because the actual quote from the interview is:

"the spirit of Kirk is very much alive and well in Chris Pine."

A reader, IMO, is able to understand that this is a colloquialism and that that this refers to Chris Pine's performance and not to Chris Pine as a person, without us specifying it for them. It is also a more accurate transcription from the actual interview. I think when directly quoting from sources we should refrain from qualifying them no matter how accurate we think our interpretation may be. Alternatively we may use [sic] after the quote. Any thoughts? Dr.K. logos 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why it would read in Pine and why it wouldn't. I think if the quote is going to be there, it should be accurate to what was actually written. Erikeltic (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I keep reverting it back in because its crappy sentence structure, no offense intended. We are to use quotes when exceptional claims are made, and the part that is exceptional is in fact quoted; the part about the performance is outside of those quotations. We should aim to paraphrase otherwise.

Now, in regards to correctly interpreting that quote, let's look at the statements in the cited article that support the inclusion of the word performance (bold text is supplied for emphasis):

"And I think what you'll find is that there is a lot of Kirk you will recognize in the performance, but Chris Pine is his own brilliant actor. And it's all about what he brings to the part. I would say that the spirit of Kirk is very much alive and well in Chris Pine."

I think it is frankly silly to avoid the use of the proper term when the proper term is called for. This is an encyclopedia, after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to interpret what another person said when it's very clearly written. If you think the sentence is "crappy" then you should put brackets around [performance] to show that you are paraphrasing a direct quote. Erikeltic (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Erikeltic. I find that adding the word "performance" is WP:ORish or WP:SYNTHish. But if we must, (and I don't see why we have to), putting "performance" in square brackets is the next best (less bad?) thing. Dr.K. logos 03:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the sentence structure is particularly bad. Including this unusual "'s as in Pine"'s performance. Dr.K. logos 03:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not need to put brackets around the word performance; that's another step down the Path of Crap and quite frankly, we don't need that. And when discussing things that are "clearly written," it is usual to actually understand the statements in context, so as to avoid using quotes out of context. The statemetns noted above clearly demonstrate that the quoted was referring to the performance of Pine. As to OR and SYN, I find those to be somewhat inaccurate assessments; both imply a use of material that isn't stated which, as I've pointed out above, was actually in the citation. Noting that the spirit is "alive and well in Pine" suggests that the actor himself is living - in real life - the spirit of Kirk (and likely in dire need of psychiatric help). That is not only laughably inaccurate, it is incorrectly citing the source citation. Pine played a role; that someone thought his performance of the fictional character is the correct intent of the quote.

I've made a further alteration that I think should be more acceptable. It has the advantage of utilizing the quote's exceptional claim, whilst paraphrasing the bits that needed fixing, conforming them to the rest of the section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How did the actual quote read, not your interpretation of it? Erikeltic (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you be troubled to actually read the posts you are responding to? Look up the page: I transcribed the quote precisely how it appeared in the citation (with the embolding of the word in discussion). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the new edit. I think it's much better than the previous version. Also the shorter quote is accurate. Good work. I think this should do it. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for your enquiry into the matter. I am glad we were able to work together, you and I, to find a solution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Bennett

What is the general thought about listing Jimmy Bennett under "performed by" as (young Kirk). Young Kirk is actually the credit Bennett is given in the new film. Also, the "young Spock" is not listed on the Spock bio. Can we all agree to do on both pages whatever we decide here with listing him blankly or crediting him as "(young Kirk)". Thoughts? Erikeltic (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you speaking of listing them in the infobox, then my thoughts are that we shouldn't do it. If we do not list other portrayals of the fictional character during the "age" that he is known, then we most certainly do not do so for those actors portraying them as young children for backstory. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this. EEMIV was pretty heavily involved in the earlier discussion. What do you think EEMIV? Erikeltic (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's largely withdrawn from the article, deferring to FennShysa's edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Omit him. --EEMIV (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet Iowa??

Okay, since we don't have specific infobox fields for states, someone has added (twice) the state of Kirk's fictional birth. We don't need this, as we do not need to provide extra detail to one infobox entry that we do not add to another. This is an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to change the template to read "Birthplace" rather than "Homeworld". Or, remove this trivial field altogether. Really, can anyone name a character whose birthplace was reallllly important to know ;-)? --EEMIV (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An even better solution. Race is important where there are numerous species, but in the disapora that is Star Trek, there are humans born on Vulcan, Bolians born on Mars, etc. It just leads to all sorts of unnecessary fanboi discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think homeword "Earth" works. Erikeltic (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dual picture for infobox

I think that, with the restart of the franchise, we need to create a side-by-side image of Shatner/Pine for the infobox. I think that Cawley's portrayal, while significant (it seems to have kept the series alive while Paramount kept trying to kill it), should be there as well, but I am somewhat flexible about that. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as dual pictures is concerned, rather than replicating this discussion across all the character articles, let's please keep it centralized at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Dual_picture_for_infobox. As for including Cawley: no, I don't think it's appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess

This whole thing reads almost like a stream of consciousness outpouring from someone utterly obsessed with Chris Pine. There is no structure to the character's life, career or development at all. This is supposed to about about the character James T Kirk.

Clearly there has been an ongoing edit war here, which is not wholly unexpected from Star Trek fans, but this one really is a humdinger. We've got obsessive classic Trekkers clashing with someone who evidently has wet dreams about Chris Pine. In the resulting mayhem, facts are jumbled up with movie reviews, and clarity has been utterly lost. This is perhaps the worst single summing up of the life of a fictional character I have ever come across, and as an encyclopedic entry it completely fails. It's mixed up, imbalanced, emotive, and basically incoherent.

Guys, get this sorted, or I will rewrite the entire thing myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk • contribs)

Well, let's see: two of the eight Development paragraphs are about Pine; one of the six Depiction paragraphs is about Pine's version of the character. Half of one paragraph, out of five total, focuses on reception to Pine's portrayal. "Utterly obsessed" with Pine, with "wet dreams"? Not so much. Lack of structure? Nah, structure is pretty clear, and follows the format used in multiple featured articles about fictional characters, like Master Chief (Halo) and Palpatine. Mixed up, emotive, incoherent, imbalanced? No, it's well-cited, thorough, and neutral. The only "complete mess" I see here is this lame attempt at trolling. But, hey, if you think the article is so awful, fix it rather than pretend to whine about it. However, seeing as how your most recent contributions under this anonymous IP consist of griping and antagonizing on talk pages, that's probably too much to ask. --EEMIV (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Instead of resorting instantly to personal abuse, do you not fancy taking another look at the entry and try separating the life of the character from the actors who played him? It's an utter mash up. Try this, instead of just labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "troll". "EEMIV" is no less anonymous than an IP number. I do not edit main articles but would be happy in this case to eschew all this emotional involvement you guys display here and completely fix up this entry for you if you want? I know an excellent authority on the life and times of James T Kirk who would be delighted to give a clear, concise, factual and well structured entry - one that would actually make sense to those who are not card carrying members of Trek fandom. I think that's reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know such an authority, please do consult him and let us know what's wrong with the article. Alastairward (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Meantime, it might be useful if you guys called a truce and agreed to let just one of you write the whole thing. Main problem is it's clearly been pasted together by too many contributors determined to put their own stamp on the Kirk story - it's about as cohesive as the script for Plan 9 From Outer Space. Naturally, the new Star Trek movie has set the cat amongst the pigeons here and caused a bit of a ding-dong between the obsessives, and the resulting confusion reads like a movie review has been shredded into the mix. This entry is the result of what has obviously been a pretty nasty edit war. Please, take it from me: to someone just looking at the article to find out about the character (as the character, not the actors), there is no clear narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to be civil, assume good faith on behalf of other users and remember that no one person owns an article. Please also remember not to make the article too "in-universe" orientated. Alastairward (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for the "in-universe" point. I realise there are parameters (and a canonical minefield) when detailing with the biography of a fictional character, but at the same time I do not want to have to wade through information about (for example) what Bill Shatner thought about not being asked to cameo in the latest movie (that surely belongs on his page). Can I suggest to any potential single authors of this entry to check out the Oliver Twist page - it's an excellent example of a bio of a fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sidestepping for a moment some of the evaluative invective above, I think the anon - if they are actually intending to make some significant changes to the article, should seriously consider setting up an account. Anons making big changes in articles are usually seen with a gimlet eye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Arcayne & EEIMV, I'm not out of this discussion, but I haven't seen the movie yet and I don't want to spoil it so I'm being very careful on what I'm reading right now. I'm sure I'll have more comments to add after I see it this weekend. Erikeltic (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just by the by, but I checked out the Oliver Twist character page, it's basically a plot rehash and could do with the same attention this article received. Alastairward (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that before or after I removed its citations to Sparknotes(!!!)? ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now I've upset the Star Trek fans. Guess it underlines the case for a NPOV rewrite of this article. Anyone out there not going to automatically reach for their sarcasm phasers just because they get a little bit of criticism? You know, a simple "rehash of the plot" would actually explain a lot more about the Captain Kirk character than this car crash of conflicting special interests. Is a straightforward narrative really too much to ask? I feel like I'm grappling with Comic Book Store Guy from the Simpsons. Although I am grateful to have a new phrase to add to my vocabulary: "a gimlet eye". A gimlet eye. Love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, why don't we all just cut to the chase then. 87.246.71.166, if you see something specific you'd like us to work on (actually quote the text) then we'll work on it. If you have something you'd like to add, be bold and do so. Chasing around the talk page will do nobody any good if there's something genuine to do for this article that will benefit readers. Alastairward (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's two specifics:

1) Kirk's Starfleet decorations. These are mentioned at length in "Court Martial" before the list is cut short. What are Kirks full decorations? No mention of them here. 2) Don't want to spoil the film for anyone, but it takes place in an alternate universe/timeline. So Chris Pine's version of Kirk has actually no more relevance to the "real" Kirk than the version of Kirk who appeared in "Mirror Mirror". This too was a parallel universe/timeline. No mention of it here, so why all the focus on the Chris Pine version? Simply because it's a big budget movie rather than a 50 minute episode? The life and career of the Kirk in "Mirror Mirror" was pretty detailed - it should have every bit as much weight (or conversely lack of notability) as the Chris Pine Kirk. Now, I use Wiki a lot, I donate to it occasionally, but I never presume to edit actual articles. I do on rare occasions get involved in discussion pages when - as a layman - I find that the main article is either irrelevant or confusing. I'll leave it here. All I will ask of you guys is that you reread the entry and consider it from the point of view of someone who does not have any back knowledge of the character. I'm not asking for an idiots guide, but simply that the narrative is more linear and (dare I use the word) logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Anon will not be back, but what he/she/it mentioned is dealt with by (IMO) 1) trivia and 2) the fact that a new actor is playing the character in a significant role. Pretty straightforward. Alastairward (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --EEMIV (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Collage

I commend the image as a diligent compilation of Kirk pics, but the image should be changed. While collected into a single JPEG, it is still a collection of non-free images. The collage is a fair use violation, similar to an image gallery. Simply, the collage is excessive use, and should likely be parred down for the benfit of the article to two of these images. My suggestion is to keep the two Kirk images from the films. -Sharp962 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

I have nominated the image for deletion, discussion can be found here -Sharp962 (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

I voted keep. If anything else, I think Shatner, Pine, Cawley, and cartoon & plastic Kirk add something to the article. I don't believe it violates anything. Erikeltic (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some good suggestions for future images had been brought up on the deletion discussion, that I was hoping to continue here. The images of Shatner, Pine and or Cawley, might be used and meet minimal use criteria. The article might benifit from future images not in collage form, this would utilize the pics to better illustrate their individual points. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

As per that comment, I've added an image fo Cawley, and moved around comments to shore up any fair use complaints that might arise. As the collage has been deleted (and somewhat rightfully so, as it added passing and non-serious portrayals of the character as well as toys and cartoons), we have to add the images singly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cawley image is a good addition (although it looks like there is too much coffee in the future), and good job on liscence for Pine. I think current images suffice and meet fair-use, as they illustrate well and more specific than the collage. -Sharp962 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I appreciate the second look. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting Changes

I have made a few formatting changes, per the discussion at WP:Star Trek. All in all, I think it looks really nice. Thoughts? Erikeltic (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It does look nice. I fixed up the Cawley stuff and added an appropriate image for use. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

With the collage's removal, I don't see much point in retaining the lesser-known, non-iconic images of Pine and Cawley. The article lacks commentary on the portrayals' physical description, and the pictures do not in any way add significantly? or is substantially? to readers' understanding of the article. Probably all three pictures could be axed. Regardless, I plan to IfD both the Pine and Cawley images. --EEMIV (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

where to put the fan stuff

I'm pretty sure the talk-page consensus here or at Spock or at McCoy or somewhere settled that fan-film and other fan-made depictions of these characters are appropriate in the reaction/reception section -- and that the "depiction" section would be limited to licensed/studio portrayals. But, I can't find the conversation. Can someone point me toward it? --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about this a while ago here in Kirk (we're all still licking our wounds from those 2 weeks!) and I really think that there should be a section on the primary Trek biographies called Cultural Impact. In that section, I think that the article should begin with the importance/ impact that the character(s) have had on our culture. From there, it could move into the fan productions in a really nice, clear, clean, and respectful way. It will keep the article uncluttered and improve flow. I'm sure Arcayne will have something to say about this, but if we had a section like that it would be something he could really run with because of the passion he has for the Phase II productions. I'd even be up for helping out as much as I could with it. I think it would help the article(s). Erikeltic (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Who really cares what Arcayne thinks. He acts like a troll. We also need to delete that picture of Cawley. Also (IMHO) Phase II sucks anyway. I mean if I put up a video of me as Captain Kirk on YouTube should it be included in this article? No. So, let's get rid of the Phase II stuff in this article. SChaos1701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Regardless of what Arcayne thinks, pro or con, we shouldn't delete the image of Cawley. Your opinion that the show "sucks" is just that, your opinion - and Wikipedia doesn't revolve around your opinion. Phase II is entirely notable, mentions of it are well-referenced, and removing it from the article because of personal biases, either against the series or certain editors, is both wrong-headed and against policy. IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, SChaos, dial back the aggro - it only increases your blood pressure and is doesn't really affect me at all. Chill out and work with people. Your argument about putting an image of yourself up as Kirk on YouTube is seriously flawed on numerous counts. First, you (probably) not an actor, so I am guessing your performance might as professional as a parent's giggling baby video, or one where a dog is filmed eating peanut butter. Secondly, we aren't talking about Youtube. Phase II has its own website, production schedule, etc. In a word, its professional, well-done and recognized by the actual trek folk at Paramount (as per citation in the article). Thirdly - and perhaps more importantly - your opinion is useless here. That isn't meant as a kick in the teeth; SC; you aren't citable, and you need to put a lot more effort into being neutral than you are currently displaying. that in itself is easily perceived as "trollish" behavior. Keep that in mind.

I was going to discuss this here, but it seems the topic is being discussed by proxy in the AfD discussion of the Cawley image. For what its worth, the edits I made dividing Cawley into Cultural impact as well as Depiction seem a fair cop. I mean, seriously, what person in their right mind is going to argue that the fan film depiction isn't a dramatic portrayal of the character? We have a citation speaking to that portrayal, which essentially pimp-slaps any argument countering it. We aren't citable, and our personal opinions do not counterbalance citable references. Period. The only reason that the same sorts of arguments aren't occurring at McCoy, Scotty, etc article images is that they aren't supported by reliable citation, and I would personally fight against the inclusion of those fan portrayal images without it reliable references speaking to the portrayal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the Cawley stuff to the reaction section. For one thing, the meat of the blurb Acrcayne keeps putting in the "depiction part" is, in fact, critical reaction. For another thing, the portrayals is a fan reaction to the character's/show's success. --EEMIV (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've put it back. Let's leave it there for now, and discuss this further. We are both very strong personalities, and that sort of back and forth is just going to end with us at each others' throats - hardly productive. We can find middle ground, but edit-warring is going to simply cloud the issue.

The so-called "critical reaction" to Cawley's portrayal is specific to those traits of Kirk's which are brought to the fore by Cawley's portrayal. I guess it cold also go in Development (along with the image) in between the Shatner and Pine portrayals. The only part that belongs in Critical reaction is the Paramount writer's referring to Cawley as Kirk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wired's critical reaction to Cawley's performance appropriate in the "depiction" section but Shatner's is appropriate in the "Critical reaction" section? Wired is referring to Cawley's performance/Cawley-as-actor, not anything "in-universe", as is appropriate in the depiction section. --EEMIV (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't change it mid-stream. Leave it where it was at the start of this discussion. Erikeltic (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Fine, let's strawpoll it: The content about Cawley's performance of Kirk -- to whit, reference to the continuing online portrayal, Wired's critical reaction, and the anecdote about the Enterprise writers shouting "Hey Kirk" at him -- should stay in the Reaction section, if anywhere at all. This is the default position/assumption for other notable fan/amateur performances of Kirk (e.g. other web series, a Star Trek version of "Star Wars in 30 seconds").

• Support - The existence of the fan series is itself a reaction to the studio performance. The actual substantive, cited content about Cawley's appearance is Wired's critical reaction to his portrayal, and does not at all expand on the character's depiction. --EEMIV (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully, that's your opinion. The argument that the fan series is a reaction to the studio performance could easily be made about STNG, DS9, Enterprise and all of the films. As far as arguments go, it isn't the strongest. Secondly, the poll question is pretty skewed to give you the results you want; a better question would be: Where should the content of Cawley's portrayal be noted? which, i am sure you will agree is far less neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, however, STNG, DS9, and Enterprise introduced new characters having new adventures. Each show introduced new ideas to the Trek universe. Those works are original unto themselves and have their own articles accordingly. To answer your question: in the Reception area. Erikeltic (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am unfamiliar with Phase II, but upon reading more, I believe that the series is noteworthy enough to make mention, but I see where the difficulty is in placement. Upon reading the article, the Cawley section fits best with Depiction over Development but does not fit well in either. The Cawley section seems not to fit well in either place in the article, which could be resolve by a rewrite of either the Cawley, Depiction or Development section to create a smoother transition. I wish I could help more with this, but I am not familiar with Phase II to create a fair representation. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

I think that's a fair assesment of the problem, Sharp962, the article having been written with only Shatner and Pine's portrayals being emphasized. If you want to take a crack at it, I am sure that someone can help out when you hit a pocket of misunderstanding of Phase II stuff. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per EEMIV. I too think it belongs in Reception (at best) or in a sub-section called Cultural Impact. Had it not been for the original Trek, Cawley would not even be on the radar screen. I reiterate earlier statements about the derivative nature of Phase II and still believe that any reference to it belongs in reception (or Cultural Impact). Erikeltic (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Using that reasoning (and remarkable lack of citation), it could be argued that after Enterprise nearly killed the franchise, that Cawley et. al. kept the original spirit alive long enough to foster interest in a reboot. Following that chain of thought, Pine also belongs in Cultural impact. I am sorry, but I am not going to agree with any edit that minimizes Cawley's portrayal. He is one of three people who have seriously interpreted the role. At the very least, his portrayal deserves equal footing with that of Pine. Anything that removes or marginalizes Cawley is a non-starter for me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the reboot plans hadn't been in process while Enterprise was still on the air, that's a stretch and gives way too much weight to Cawley, once again. As for the other stuff, that is your opinion & you are certainly allowed to have it. My opinion (an opinion shared by most here) is that Cawley's portrayal is a reaction to Kirk existing in the first place. Are you suggesting that James Cawley would have played Kirk even without Gene Roddenberry creating Kirk in the first place? Clearly, Cawley's reacting to the original Star Trek. So far everyone except for you has voiced a concern of the Cawley placement. I hope you can see that. If anything, you could give Cawley much more wiki time in the Reaction section.Erikeltic (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a sample within my Sandbox. I have readded some items that appeared to have been removed somewhere along the line. Please do not edit this before we have a chance to discuss it here. After looking at it, I think it really cleans up the article and presents both Phase II and Reception in a whole new way. The Reception is actually about the reception of the character. Erikeltic (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, Erikeltic, this is a pretty nifty edit. I only wish you'd brought this here first before putting it in. That said, with the exception of subsectioning the fan stuff from the comedic interpretations, I could live with this version. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually gasped when I read that. Thanks! If it makes you feel better, we can reposition the Iowa stuff to go directly under Cawley, and then move into the stuff about parodies. Would that satisfy your desire to keep Cawley away from anything spoof related? Erikeltic (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be an encyclopedic choice, Erikeltic. Subsections might serve the article better, so as to distinguish one-shot skits from a cohesive series. I think its important to note that the fan stuff has been pretty serious, meticulous stuff, and I think that the marginalizing of it is a huge mistake, a nod to ST purists that shouldn't be getting any such favor. That might be unintentional, but its there. Most of the fan stuff I've seen is garbage, and only a few exceptions (Phase II and the Farragutt series) are worth any mention at all. And, Phase II is the only one where Kirk is portrayed - that deserves repeating - the only one. Do I think they are better than the series? No, but they are really high quality for amateur productions. I thought you should know why I keep stating that these series and portrayals shouldn't be marginalized: its unencyclopedic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty sharp now. Erikeltic (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As do I. I think it could be sharper, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Do what I did (today and before) and take it to your sandbox, work on it, and then subject it to review. Erikeltic (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Prime Version vs. Reboot

Leonard Nimoy is credited at Spock Prime in the 2009 Trek film. I included the term prime in the first portion of Kirk's biography, but it has been changed. The concept of prime is prolific in comic books, various sci-fi programs, etc. The way it reads to me now is that Kirk is no longer born in Iowa (period) because the franchise has been rebooted. That tosses aside the entire premise that the film takes place in an alternate reality and that the only Trek reality that seems to count at this point is the one JJ Abrams has created. Can we find another introduction to that article that clearly shows the differences between Kirk Prime and the version born in the shuttle? The difference can be seen here. For the time being I have reverted my original edit and Arcayne's subsequent edit to the original text. Erikeltic (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The "prime" term seems needlessly "complicated" -- it's clearer and more accessible simply to say, the movie/characters create a different timeline. --EEMIV (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the alternate timeline only? I guess that works for me. Erikeltic (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the alternate timeline only? I guess that works for me. Erikeltic (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I kinda thought my edit neatly addressed it. While i understand where you are extrapolating a prime universe versus an alternative one, that specific intent is not explicitly made; all that is said that the Abrams film film represents an alternate history. No more, no less. That might change with the DVD release (director commentary, etc.), but until then, we are stuck with what we have been provided. As it has been cited as a reboot, and most of the readers may very well be unaware of what that is, my edit specifically addresses that. Taking the observed (which is to say uncited) credit roll and applying it to a similar usage in "comic books, various sci-fi programs, etc" is synthesis, as much OR as the assessment that " the only Trek reality that seems to count at this point is the one JJ Abrams has created". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what then... in the absence of that commentary, why don't we just leave it the way it is currently and let the reader figure it out for themselves when they read the Alternate timeline as EEMIV has suggested? If that commentary you're talking about comes (either way) then we can address it then. Erikeltic (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image dating

I reverted an edit that offered a different date for the image currently being used in the infobox:

"Caption = William Shatner as Kirk in an early 1966 publicity photograph for the original Star Trek"¹

In my edit summary, I asked if some citation for the for the image could be brought here. I has seen the image's page, which noted the date for the image as 1967. However, further investigation at the noted source doesn't offer any date. TOS ran from 1967-'69, and Kirk had been cast in '66 for the second pilot. Now, while it seems reasonable to deduce that the image was taken in 1966, it could just as easily have been taken in '67. As an encyclopedia, we cannot make the synthesized assessment as to the date of the image. We need a source, or we need to use language that foregoes that level of specificity. To whit, I couldn't determine if the new edit was accurate, so reverted to the prior consensus edit, and asked for discussion on the topic.
While my revert was itself reverted, I think that Alaistairward's subsequent interim edit seems to find the middle ground I noted above. I do think some discussion is warranted, as the image - having uncited info in its rationale - is vulnerable for IfD under NFCC#10 (identification). If we can locate a true date for the still, we can improve both the article and the image page simultaneously. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a clue is in the picture itself. The collar of Kirk's is very early in the series production, and I think we could leave the word "early" in the picture description, ie, instead of "an early 1966 (or 1967) picture", just "an early picture". I did a quick skim of stills from the first 10 episodes, didn't see any uniforms exactly like the picture, but episode 5 (by production) "The Enemy Within" looks like the last time they wore shirts like that, after that they seem to go with the thinner, less "thick velvety" looking shirt (super-technical description huh?! :) ) --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I get that, Despayre, which is what I said in my edit summary when I reverted the dating edit. My problem with that reasoning is that neither you nor I are citable references. Our observations and reasoned deductions don't count. I think its safe to say that hundreds if not thousands of books have been published on ST; someone, somewhere has to have a date for this image that we can cite. We aren't allowed the freedom to guesstimate - especially not when information is disputed. In short, we need a citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actor names

I would like the actor names removed from the depiction section. This section is by all accounts an in-universe biography, and in-universe, Spock is played by Spock, not Leonard Nimoy. The same goes for all other characters listed, though it's even more ridiculous to add in one-episode actors. If people want to know who played those people, they can go to the relevant articles. Here they just clutter it up. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a conversation to take up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. Featured movie articles (e.g. Witchfinder_General_(film)) and character articles (Padme Amidala and Palpatine) include other actors' names in the appearances/plot/depiction -- i.e. in-universe plot summary -- section. I don't see it codified in the style guideline, but it seems to be the general practice. For my own part, it seems to be a click-saving way of answering the common question, "Who played that character?" --EEMIV (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally get that, EEMIV, but I also get Mattbuck's point. I do note that many of the featured-quality Star Wars articles are similar in design, utilizing the format that has been applied here. There is some precedent for doing it that way. That said, other FA's - Jabba the Hutt, Bernard Quatermass, [[]Troy McClure] - indicate a different method of explaining depictions and plot/backstory. I sort of agree with Matt that the parenthetical inclusion of the actor is jarring; after all, we have links in the article so that interested readers can explore who portrayed a certain character and so on. While I see your point, I think there is precedent for taking another route. As has been shown in the Doctor Who articles, following precedent isn't always required.

I am thinking that the idea of click-saving might be thwarting the reader's right to follow their own bliss in knowledge. If they want to know that Spock is portrayed by Nimoy (or Quinto), they can click on the link to Spock, and go from there. Out job here is to give the info on the fictional character, and his interactions with other fictional characters in a fictional universe. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial number and commendations

I was watching "Court-Martial" and it gave him his own serial number and had tons of commendations he had but they cut it short because it would take too long to hear them all, is it worth mentioning his commendations and awards in the article (and I guess also his serial number)? Other officers also had their serial numbers revealed in this episode.
Serial Number: SC 937-0176 CEC
Commendations and Awards of Valor:

• Palm Leaf of Axanar Peace Mission
• Grankite Order of Tactics, Class of Excellence
• Prentares Ribbon of Commendation, Classes First and Second
• Medal of Honor
• Silver Palm with cluster
• Starfleet Citation for Conspicuous Gallantry
• Karagite Order of Heroism
• ...
  felinoel (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is pure trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James T. Kirk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is ongoing. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   See issues listed below review.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See issues listed below review.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   See issues listed below review.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:JamesTKirk.jpg and File:Chris pine kirk.jpg have a mis-match between the image description ("this is a publicity photo") and license ("this is a screen shot").

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing issues

1. The lead section should summarize key points of the article, not introduce new information. There should be no citations in the lead, because the actual information later on in the article should be referenced.
2. Sequential sentences using the same reference should be consolidated. Ex. "Although born on Earth, Kirk for a time lived on Tarsus IV, where he was one of nine surviving witnesses to the massacre of 4,000 colonists by Kodos the Executioner (Arnold Moss).[1] James Kirk's brother, Sam, and his sister-in-law are introduced and killed in "Operation: Annihilate!", leaving behind three children.[1]" The reference here should only follow the last sentence.
3. Consider using shortened footnotes to consolidate common sources.

Tone

There are parts of this article that meander in-and-out of in-universe style. "Depiction" presents what boils down to a character biography, which should be avoided according to the Manual of Style for writing about fiction.

Related MOS, policies, guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
  • WP:INUNIVERSE
  • WP:PASI

Consider:

• Khan Noonien Singh, a featured article

Suggestions Consider writing something along the lines of: "The original Star Trek series featured a young, brash Captain ... (some characteristics, features) ...." The character analysis (Jewett, Lawrence; Erdman, Block) is great. How Shatner evolved the role of Kirk throughout the course of the series, his aspirations for the role, depictions in the films, and so forth should be in this section. The parts of "Development" that are about character development as the show evolved, should go in depiction, because it explains how the depiction of Kirk changed. (Development and design of the character, how Roddenberry decided to make him different from Pike, and that sort of thing should stay in the Development section.)

In-universe biographical style and events are heavily frowned upon unless sources show that their occurance effected Shatner/Pine's depiction of Kirk. For example, if there is a source that claims/explains/shows how Sam Kirk's death resulted in Shatner changing his acting to show a mourning Kirk, that can be mentioned. Otherwise Sam, or his death, or the massacre shouldn't be mentioned. Events which sources state show aspects of Kirk's character, such as his refusal to kill Kodos, can stay in that context.

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall

In general, ignoring the problems previously stated about in-universe biographies of fictional characters, this is a very well written article. The research, particularly into depiction and characterization, is excellent. Other than the WP:INUNIVERSE problems, the only other issues are minor -- MOS referencing, image description-license mismatches, &tc. -- and are easily fixed.

Also please note that my suggestions in the previous section are just that -- suggestions. I am placing this article on hold for the time being. The article has the potential to become a Good Article if a dedicated editor had the time to sit down and redevelop the "Depiction" section. The hold will remain for a week, at which point the article will either be Passed or Failed depending on changes made in the meantime.

Should you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please leave a signed note in the section below titled "Response." Should any editor disagree with any of the above points and analysis to the extent that they wish for a second opinion, please request one in the response section below.

--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

reliability of sources for birth year 2228 vs. 2233

In the Depiction subsection the article states "James T. Kirk was born ... in the year 2228" using citation [1], a reference to "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" (Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-53609-5 by Okuda, Mike and Denise Okuda, with Debbie Mirek (1999)). From analysis of the information below, that Tertiary source is inaccurate. Evidence indicates that "The Making of Star Trek" is the Secondary source, and it is also allegedly inaccurate. The so-called Star Trek canon states that the birth year is 2233, and it might be nice if this discrepancy could be documented or resolved vis_a_vis this wikipedia article. (I am a relative newcomer, and am still uncertain about applying the rules for "reliable sources" and data accuracy here. I am making this posting in an effort to learn, I'm not overly bothered that the wikipedia article is inaccurate, since the No_Original_Research page states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore, I conclude that wikipedia's controllers would prefer "inaccurate but verifiable" over "accurate but not verifiable". Of course, the problem I have is comprehending the meaning of "verifiable" in this context.)

For example, see the specification of "2233" at these URLs:

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/character/1112496.html Date of birth: March 22, 2233

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Riverside Long before Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home established that Kirk was from Iowa, Gene Roddenberry had stated in his book The Making of Star Trek that Kirk had been born in Iowa on March 22, 2228. However, he had not been more specific. Note that while the book stated the year 2228 as Kirk's year of birth, canon established a year of 2233 in TOS: "The Deadly Years". 2233 is confirmed in Star Trek, since the timeline does not change until the Narada appears, and his mother, Winona Kirk, was pregnant with him at that time.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk Born: 22 March 2233 (stardate 1277.1) In March 1985, when the town was looking for a theme for its annual town festival, Steve Miller, a member of the Riverside City Council who had read The Making of Star Trek – a book that lists Kirk's year of birth as 2228 rather than 2233 as established in TOS: "The Deadly Years" – suggested to the council that Riverside should proclaim itself to be the future birthplace of Kirk. Miller's motion passed unanimously. The council later wrote to Roddenberry for his permission to be designated as the official birthplace of Kirk, and with Roddenberry's consent, the town developed a tourist industry around the idea. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home then established on screen that Kirk was born in Iowa.

I read both the other Talk Archives and did not find any discussion of this discrepancy, nor the reliability of the current Tertiary source. Therefore this post documents it. It is not evident to me how to resolve the discrepancy of 2228 vs. 2233. It does seem that the Tertiary source "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" could be changed to a Secondary source "The Making of Star Trek" (authors Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry).

In order to change the date specified in the article from "2228" to "2233", what must be done to allow the following information (from 'canon') to be adopted on wikipedia as a 'reliable source'?:

  canon established a year of 2233 in TOS: "The Deadly Years". 
  2233 is confirmed in Star Trek, since the timeline does not 
  change until the Narada appears, and his mother, Winona Kirk, 
  was pregnant with him at that time.

Is the surmisal of data from the TOS (The Original Series) episode "The Deadly Years" a potentially verifiable or reliable source?

James Rodriguez 23:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodor (talk • contribs)

• Where in "The Making of Star Trek" does it state anything about a birth year for any character on TOS? Exact page number, please. It doesn't. GR repeatedly said they didn't tie anything down to a specific year back then. Just general stuff, like "two hundred years ago," etc (that in "Space Seed" which was later retconned to three hundred years). Honestly, I don't care what year the character was born but I hate to see something quoted as a source when in fact it does not say that. Sir Rhosis (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mirror Kirk

I just want to ask a question. Why does Mirror Kirk not featured in the article page? Bart-16 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's overall a very minor component of the character's development. --EEMIV (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Persian translation

Someone has (needlessly) translated a section of the article into Persian. Can someone else change it back?--Auric (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fixed to me. You may want to refresh your view of the article. Rodhullandemu 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was fixed after Auric posted the comment. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kirkian logic

I noticed Kirkian logic redirecting to paradox. A quick googling yielded eight distinct uses of the term, the first version points at possible use on Wikipedia's federation pages, so I pointed the redirect here, maybe you can use it. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GOCE

• All redirected & disambiguation links fixed. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Classic/Alternative Timelines

The original "Development" section seemed to have accidentally written in the middle of the "alternative timeline" discussion. I separated them and divided the article into "Classic Timeline" and "Alternative Timeline" to help avoid this confusion. I didn't change the content in any significant way--Mkow88 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with WikiuserNI's reversion of this edit, and with the sentiment in his edit summary. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with EEMIV; WikiuserNI's reversion of this edit is appropriate. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My main motivation was that the "Development" had significant content relating to the 2009 movie, and was itself very long. I felt that this portion should be noted. Really, the characters of Jame T. Kirk in the two timelines are almost totally different, though related. Perhaps instead of calling the section "alternative timeline", maybe "Depiction in 2009 film Startrek"? --Mkow88 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that the way it is currently is fine. If there are additional movies that spawn a completely rebooted franchise, then I may tend to agree with you. However, as it stands we are comparing 40 years worth of Trek against one movie and to do what you are suggesting gives that one film too much weight and detracts from the cultural significance James T. Kirk has had. Please do not change it until there is a consensus. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Someone should add that Jason Alexander (George - of Seinfeld fame) claims on several video sources (YouTube) that he idolizes and emulates Shatner. You can really see it in the Seinfeld series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.224.39 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kirk as legend

I inserted an edit on Kirk's legendary status by the time of TNG and DS9, which EEMIV reverted without explanation. Is there something inappropriate about it? Ylee (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty much like WP:OR. And your source was an episode? DP76764 (Talk) 04:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TV episodes aren't normally considered impermissable primary sources; rather, WP:TVPLOT applies. The episode's dialogue is clear (beyond the direct quote I inserted); to the Defiant's crew Kirk is a legendary hero. No OR needed. Ylee (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this revert: I didn't mean to say that the Wikipedia article was the source; I know that's of course not proper. The cite was to indicate that the episode dialogue itself is the source. I disagree that the word "legend" is OR, but the edit still works without it. I won't reinsert the edit without further discussion here, though. Ylee (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if we assume that TVPLOT is applicable here, which is a big if, did anyone call Kirk a legend in the episode? If not, the term "legend" is a personal conclusion which makes it OR. Also when you use <ref> tags to support a fact and in the ref tag there is a Wikipedia article, it follows that you are using the article as reference. But I don't think WP:TVPLOT applies in this case because this article is about the character not the plot section of a TV series, so there should be no analysis of any tv plots in this article. The TVPLOT shortcut redirects to a section of MOS:TV which is called *Plot section*, which makes it clear that it only applies to plot sections in articles about tv episodes and should not be imported in other articles. You have to find a Star Trek critic, who in a reliable source claimed what you try to claim using the episode as a source, otherwise this is OR. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT is the most applicable discussion on this subject since WP:MOSTV#Character article structure is (surprisingly) silent. Another relevant discussion is WP:PASI, specifically the commonsensical "writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". I am not aware of any WP codicil that prohibits using dialogue taken straight from a fictional source as a cite. In any case, were your stance the correct one, the entire paragraph I attempted to edit should be deleted since it is currently completely uncited! Ylee (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point about the rest of the paragraph. I hadn't seen that. I guess as long as there is consensus, edits like the paragraph in question can be included, especially if directly pertaining to the character. In this case I wouldn't mind if you modified your edit and added the information, without the term "legend" if it is not included in the episode you refer to. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Development of name

This was removed "In the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", a grave stone erroneously lists Kirk's middle initial as R. rather than T. It wasn't until The Animated Series that his middle name Tiberius is introduced and made canon. In the early stages of development, a middle name had not been chosen and the letter R. was arbitrarily used on the grave stone." the reason given was that it is trivial. I dont see how that is trivial, it shows how the writers altered the original name after the series ended, that is of interest given the topic of the paragraph is about his name. Why shouldn't this be included? If it was simply a mistake using the letter R then sure its just trivia, but the intent of this statement is that he had no middle name so they pick an initial at random. If true (needs a citation) that means the character was altered after the series ended. Thats worth a couple sentences. Smitty1337 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro needs work

I think it peculiar that the intro to this article doesn't say much about James Kirk, just who played the character. The article is about the character, not the actors who portrayed him. I think the intro needs serious work. Akuvar (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted per WP:LEAD and per WP:WAF. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, which is not primarily about James Kirk, due to the influence of WP:WAF. We care more about how the real world perceived and received Kirk than we do Kirk himself. --Izno (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't want to describe him as a real person, perhaps I was doing a little too much of that. But this intro is not compliant with WP:LEAD in that it gives no synopsis of Kirk or the article, as my first comment mentions it speaks 85% as to what actors played kirk over the years. This is certainly not a synopsis of kirk or what you will find in reading the whole article. As you said, we need a summary here. Akuvar (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. --Izno (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a summary of the character's in-universe persona & history would be appropriate. I'll take a whack at it in a bit. --EEMIV (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. --Izno (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Very nice EEMIV. I'm still not taken with the whole section of what actors portrayed the character as I don't see how that helps someone coming to this page looking to find out who this character Captain Kirk is. I have done some jumping around to other star trek characters and see that it is a popular trend to say what actors portrayed a character and what shows/movies the character was seen in. But I think this is a bad trend because it gives no synopsis of who the character was or what the article is about. Akuvar (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits made Jan 30, 2013

I chose to undo the reversion by EEMIV because I was about to correct my own errors in formatting when the reversion forestalled me. I apologize for inadvertently trampling all over the format guidelines for ITALICS. I think I have corrected all the formatting errors, but I would appreciate your continued vigilance on this matter. The text changes I made can, of course, be debated... Alfrew (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the kneejerk revert -- I saw a bunch of basic formatting errors and made the assumption this was just another "Hey, I edit at Memory Alpha; let me come drop some stuff over here, too" set of changes. Your content edits are nice tweaks. Thank you, too, for addressing the MOS/WAF stuff. --EEMIV (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, EEMIV. I hope my new section interests you (and that my humorous tone doesn't sound like sarcasm). Alfrew (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James T. Kirk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

2 images, 89 citations. Typical Star Trek article, still reads in-universe. JJ98 (Talk) 07:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

First appearance of James T. Kirk

I see that this has been disputed before, but no discussion seems to have taken place. Could we try to start one now? I was bold in making the change because I assumed that this was just carelessness on someone's part (before I looked through the edit history), but perhaps I was wrong. I am intrigued by the idea that the "first appear[ance]" of a television character can be anything other than the first occasion on which that character was seen in a television broadcast. Was Captain Pike's first appearance in "The Cage" (broadcast in 1988!), rather than in "The Menagerie" (1967)? Alfrew (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"First Appearance" would be the first instance that the character was publicly introduced. Not when he was intended to be publicly introduced, nor in his fictional chronological first appearance. It wouldn't matter that Pike, or Kirk for that matter, were intended to first appear in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before, respectively. They were actually introduced to the public in the The Menagerie (Pike) and The Man Trap (Kirk). That's what the article should reflect ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation

When using quotation marks, sentence-ending punctuation should be placed inside the quotes rather than outside. Here is an example of "the correct way." This should also be observed when "using a comma," or any other form of punctuation in mid-sentence.

nick_mullinix@verizon.net

Wikipedia follows a different manual of style regarding punctuation which places sentence punctuation outside the quote marks. This is to clarify that the punctuation mark itself is or is not part of what's being quoted. --EEMIV (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate

Hey.

Something needs to be be said in the article (or corrected) because actually the text says James T Kirk will be born in 2233, but later shows a pict of this "future birthplace" and an other year (2228) is written by the fans on it! What is the good year? Explanation or notes on this incoherence is required (i think, don't you?). I don't know enough Star Trek to tell the answer or to comment it myself. DC2en (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

All data points to Kirk being born March 22, 2233. I am unaware of the history behind the plaque in Riverside or why they chose that date to put on the plaque. Akuvar (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I wanted confirmation before edit, since I'm not a real trekkie. But now I added a comment in the picture of this plaque. This is important to notice this difference (and the fact they are auto proclaimed birthplace — it's not from the series)... I think now it's more honest. Or at least coherent. DC2en (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nyota Uhura which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

middle name problem

I know everyone thinks Kirks middle name is Tiberius, thus his middle initial is T. However, if you watch WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, and you look at the gravestone Mitchell has made for Kirk, it says "JAMES R. KIRK" on it. "R" ... not "T" ... wonder why? AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The real reason boils down to making the prop without knowing or checking the "real" answer. In-universe, I think there have been a few wonky retcon ideas proposed. My favorite comes from one of the Q-centric novels which suggests Where No Man happened in an alternate timeline. Regardless, this is an utterly trivial detail outside the appropriate scope of this article; this time of tiny detail is more aptly covered at e.g. Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But should it mention that during the rest of the original series, the T remained just an initial, with the Tiberius added later ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James T. Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.profilesinhistory.com/items/historic-highlights/captain-kirks-command-chair-from-star-trek-the-original-series.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Portrayals of James T. Kirk

Didn't Sandra Smith portray Kirk in Turnabout Intruder, albeit in a woman's body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.106.133 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Kirk's age

Several times in the history of this article, Kirk's date of birth has been changed back and forth. We need to establish the year of his birth. The plaque in Riverside, Iowa, claiming to be the birthplace of Kirk, lists it as March 2238, and many people reference this when changing his age. This plaque, however, is not canon. Memory Alpha lists Kirk's birth year as 2233, but they provide no reference. I've googled it and there seems to be some ongoing discussion about it. As far as canon goes, it doesn't seem his birth date was ever mentioned in an episode. His tombstone in Where no man has gone before says "1277.1 to 1818.7" In The Deadly years (stardate 3478.2) Kirk says he is 34 years old. The stardate calculator I found here http://trekguide.com/Stardates.htm#TOScalculator if you plug in the stardate of 3478.2 you get August 2266. When you subtract 34, and adjust for the difference of March and August, you get 2233 as Kirk's birth year. Does anyone have anything more solid? StarHOG (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The premise that "we need to establish the year of his birth" is faulty. If different sources present different years, we can assert and cite the verifiable assertions. Or we can simply state, again with citations to some exemplars, that over time and from various licensed materials, Kirk's date been inconsistent. Or we can ask the broader question: does the trivial detail about when he was born really matter in an encyclopedic treatment of the topic? I suspect the latter is sufficient, and the Depiction section of the article would be just fine excluding any attempt to assert or even narrow down this trivial piece of data. Place of birth seems to matter quite a bit, but when? Nah. Trivia. Save it for Memory Alpha to speculate and present the laundry list of conflicting dates. --EEMIV (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I certainly said, "We need to establish the year of his birth" what I meant was that people are going to continue to visit this page and change the date of his birth back and forth between 2233 and 2238 unless we figure out a solution. Your removal of his birth date simply creates a third problem, of people adding his birth date, and others deleting it because it is "trivial".StarHOG (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We could do it like in Joan Crawfords article and include a note that says that different sources claim different years of birth.*Treker (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)