Talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)

Deleted stuff

I deleted some stuff that implied living people were not doing their job. Doubtful, negative, unsourced info about real people must be deleted right away per wikipedia policy. Lots42 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Star Trek: Strange New Worlds → Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection)
• Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) → Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

– Given the popularity of Trek television and films, versus tie-in fiction, I believe the upcoming television program would be better served occupying Star Trek: Strange New Worlds link. The anthology series should be moved to a new article, of course, etc. Fostrdv (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is a no brainer. Oldag07 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed. Move, and move. Rdzogschen (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• I support the move but I also I suggest a move to Star Trek: Strange New World (short story collection) instead. "Anthology" could mean a number of different mediums including TV and books, "short story collection" makes it clearer that it's a book and is consistent with other short story article titles (see Category:American short story collections. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 02:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolute Oppose - its far too early for us to even create an article on this proposed series... and we therefore have no idea which topic will be primary. TV shows in early production can have their title's changed or just never come to fruition. Any suggestion that this move should happen is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I guess you won't mind if I do also - even if this series starts filming, such a sudden swap of primary topic would be disruptive to both internal wikilinks and links coming in from outside. We would almost assuredly disambiguate BOTH for a time, fix the links, and wait for evidence of which is primary. Additionally, the chosen disambiguation needs to be more concise and consistent with other such collections. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per obvious consensus. Normal editing can determine how the redirect should be handled. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds → Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (short story collection) – In preparation for moving Draft:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) to mainspace, the primary topic for the base page needs to be determined, per the previous discussion. Already, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) (a redirect) has more than three times as many page views in last 30 days than Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and this will only increase once the TV series article goes live. As far as Google hits go, only 2 of the top 30 hits are for the anthology series, including the Wikipedia article. Taken together, these are clear indications that the upcoming TV series is already the primary topic. BilCat (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) → Star Trek: Strange New Worlds – additional requested move to preserve the redirect's page history. (added by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

• Oppose as too soon per WP:TVSERIES: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network or streaming provider". Its not been scheduled, so the draft is not ready for promotion. When the time comes, it'd be far less disruptive to disambiguate all for quite awhile. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing that the draft be moved, but the redirect, so please don't "correct" my proposal. As I've shown the redirect already gets more page views than the book series, and a primary topic is chiefly about what readers are looking for. As for the draft itself, it only has to pass GNG, which I believe it does at this time. BilCat (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Then I oppose this request as moot because we're not replacing an existing article at primary with a placeholder redirect that is pointing to a subsection. Seems to be putting the cart before the horse. But in reality, looking at the discussion at Draft talk:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series)#Going live, this RM seems be more of an end-run around a real discussion involving the TV series article being promoted to primary outside of normal process. For now, leave everything as it is - when or if the TV series actually gets a release announcement, then we can handle this all in one fell swoop. Beware using WP:HITS as justification, because Google tailors results to your interests/region/etc. and ignore pageviews during short periods of time of intense interest because we take a long-term approach. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Would clarify things, especially if there are any tie-in fiction works in the near future. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is not just one work but an anthology of many short stories. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 08:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• support better article title, YES! Wanderer0 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as the TV series is clearly the primary topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• support see above. Fostrdv (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) should stay disambiguated as it is (i.e. when the draft is moved to the mainspace, it should be to the disambiguated title), but this story collection article is absolutely clearly no longer the primary topic and thus needs disambiguating. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• support see above Zentulku (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support. Was going to close this but frankly, I wasn't sure which way to go. And I didn't want to close and be perceived by either "side" as !supervoting. I disagree with all of the supporters, none of whom base their rationales on policies or guidelines, and none of whom address specifically where the redirect, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series), or the new redirect that would form at the Star Trek: Strange New Worlds page title, should be targeted in the interim, until the Draft article is moved to mainspace. So instead with apologies to the requestor and to the supporters, I oppose this move until the Draft article is mainspace-ready. When that is the case, then I shall be happy to help with the page moves. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point I don't see how a guideline, WP:GNG (a community consensus), can be trumped by a supplement to the guideline, WP:TVSERIES (not thoroughly vetted by the community), to hold all this up. However, I go along with whatever the closer decides. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say that the draft is absolutely ready for publishing, so draft to the (TV series) disambiguation, this article to the (short story collection) disambiguation, ambiguous title becomes a disambiguation page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alex. Publish the draft, otherwise this argument will go in circles Thosbsamsgom (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Then why hasn't the draft been submitted for review? It's not ready for mainspace until it's been reviewed, isn't that so? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• The draft does not need to be submitted for review, that process is for new editors who do not fully understand our rules and guidelines. This draft was made by experienced editors and is ready for the mainspace now. I don't think it makes sense to move it until this discussion has been resolved though, since this page should be moved out of the way rather than having to move the draft multiple times. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly. We chose to propose clearing this page first, as the topic is primary for the series regardless of the series article's status. Since then, others have made it clear that they'll AfD the series article if it's moved before an "air" date is announced. So, no, we shouldn't publish the draft first. BilCat (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• To editor BilCat: so you want to publish the Draft article to mainspace now, but you're concerned it might go directly to AfD. You opened this RM to prepare for the Draft article as soon as that threat is gone due to an announced "air" date. Why not wait to do all this until the threat to the article is gone? What's the rush? My humble suggestion to you would be to withdraw this RM and be patient. On the other hand, what I myself might do under these circumstances is withdraw this RM and make all the page renames myself, to include publishing the Draft article to mainspace. If someone comes along and sends it to AfD, I would then weather the storm. WP:BOLD + WP:IAR, but that's just silly, li'l ol' me. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Having said all that I suppose I would have to "go with my gut", my level of certainty about this program and its future. Hey, it's Star Trek! It's been around since Bill Shatner was Capt. James T. Kirk and Leonard Nimoy was Mr. Spock (rest his soul), and here it is three or four gens. later and still popular. So my best words to you would be "go with your gut" on this one. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I did "go with my gut". Not with "your gut". And, quite frankly, I didn't expect this discussion to be still going 16 days later! It's pretty clear to me what the primary topic is, and getting readers to the article that covered that topic seemed a better option for readers, and I prioritized that over an AFD fight that kept readers clicking hatnotes to find info on the new series. BilCat (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well then, good for you BilCat! Sometimes our instincts defer to the opinions of other editors. I'm not really opposed to this, so I'll strike my oppose and say, "Let's go right to the horse's mouth" so to speak. Let's find out from Netoholic if they think whether or not playing by the rules is more important than getting information out to readers? or if there is something else they see that I don't? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The WP:TVSERIES notability guideline is the result of years of similar debates. We've agreed on a set of "rules" to prevent us from "getting information out to readers" which is arbitrary or premature. The only exceptions to the guideline tend to be unreleased TV series which garnered some form of controversy that led to them not being released, or other such circumstances. I don't believe promotion of the Draft is justifiable based on the guidelines (just be patient and wait for a release date annoucement), and that this RM is pretty baseless until such time as the article becomes promoted. When the article is promoted, it should be done to a disambiguated title (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series)) and then an RM would be relevant (to debate if there is a primary topic between the book and TV series). Doing it all backwards like this is confusing and feels like an end-run around typical procedure. Current hype for the TV series pilot shouldn't immediately displace a long-term primary topic. Also, (book series) would be a far better and more commonly-used disambiguation alternative than the one proposed. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC) (edited)

• To editor Netoholic: I think the points made here are that the redirect is getting hit a lot, which means that it's the readers who are not being patient in this case, and that we as editors need to take action on this now and not wait for scheduling. If we are comfortable with this as being a soon-to-be series, then what is the harm in bending the rules and satisfying our readers? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• To editor Paine Ellsworth: Their needs are satisfied by the target of the redirect - List of Star Trek films and television series#Strange New Worlds - which contains all the verifiable and notable information on this proposed TV series necessary for the reader. Putting a shallow stub article in its place does nothing more, and implies that the proposed show is more notable or developed than it actually is. There's been basically no developments reported on the show in 3-4 months, and shooting isn't even scheduled until next year. Lots of shows have been known to fail even at this stage, its so premature - and that's why we have WP:TVSERIES. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series) is a stub? Definitely not. If the draft was published and you sent it to AFD, I very much highly doubt that an article with ~1,500 words of readable proze would be deleted as a "stub". I'd say it'd be speedily kept under WP:GNG, which trumps WP:TVSERIES; remember, guidelines are just that, and not strict policies. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Thought a lot about this and I want to charge ahead; however, Netoholic makes valid points. I'm too attached and involved with this now to close, so it will have to be closed by someone else. Apologies to all! 8>0 P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments @Paine Ellsworth: I'm a page mover, so I could have made all the page moves myself. I chose not to as the previous move discussion made such moves problematic. I gave evidence that the series is already the primary topic based on page views and web searches, two primary criteria for determining a primary topic, which no opposer has adequately disputed. A hatnote would be placed on the redirect's target section until the draft goes live. Also, there's no need, now or later, for a two-item DAB page per WP:TWODABS, as others have advocated, especially as there is a clear primary topic. BilCat (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I've never even heard of the book. I was looking for information about the TV series that's already in production ... well pre-production since August according to this; shouldn't there be an article already? Nfitz (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Note - as was suggested above, I have gone ahead and WP:BOLDly moved the draft article to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV series). Hopefully that helps make some progress with this discussion here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Starzoner (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.