Talk:Star Trek: Section 31

Clarification on Star Trek: Section 31 Classification

Hello, everyone.

I would like some clarification regarding the classification of Star Trek: Section 31 as a television film. While I understand the film originated as a TV series and was developed by the Star Trek television crew, it was ultimately released directly to streaming as a Paramount+ original feature.

According to Wikipedia's article on the subject, a television film "is a feature-length film that is produced and originally distributed by or to a television network, in contrast to...direct-to-video films made for initial release on home video formats."

Based on this definition, Section 31 does not seem to qualify as a TV movie, as it was released directly to a streaming platform and not intended for broadcast on television once it ceased to be a series.

There appears to be some ambiguity surrounding this classification, and I would appreciate any insight into why some streaming films are labeled as TV movies here, while others (especially those of a similar nature to this one) are not. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe Section 31 as a "film based on a television series" and "the first non-theatrical Star Trek film," avoiding TV movie language?

I'm not trying to start a debate, just seeking clarity on the reasoning behind this classification. I understand "Article X does/doesn't do this, so Article Y should/shouldn't" isn't reason enough to change this page. Could someone please direct me to any relevant policies or guidelines on this matter? Thank you for your time and assistance! - UltimaGamer13 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A series made specifically for a streaming service, such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, is still a "television series" even though it wasn't made for traditional television. The same logic applies here, the film wasn't made for traditional television but it is made for streaming television which is what makes it a "television film". The fact that it was re-developed from a series isn't important, the same logic would apply if it was always intended to be a film. Saying "television film" also differentiates this from the theatrical feature films. The lines between traditional television, streaming, and home media have got quite blurry in the last 15 years or so and I suspect the article you are referring to hasn't been updated to reflect that. It is also unclear where the line is between television film and feature film when it comes to streaming services, this also came up in the Infobox discussion above and there are definitely similar projects that are not treated the same as this one on Wikipedia. One of the main arguments for sticking with the TV designation for this film is that it is specifically made by the Star Trek TV people rather than the theatrical film people, and it is treated like the series in terms of credits (e.g. it uses "executive producer" credits like a TV series). - adamstom97 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This all makes sense; however in the interest of being less ambiguous, is there another term we could use? "direct-to-streaming" film feels a bit awkward. Tduk (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The phrases "streaming series" and "streaming film" have been discouraged by WP:TV in my experience, and I think "direct-to-streaming" draws too much comparison to "direct-to-video" which is a whole separate thing. Television film for Paramount+ is the correct designation and I don't think it is ambiguous. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Awkward critic description

The film was panned by critics who gave it mostly negative reviews…

If critics gave the film "mostly" negative reviews, that means some gave it middling or positive reviews—so you can't use a blanket statement like "The film was panned by critics". Instead, how about "The film received mostly negative reviews…"? (You could omit "from critics" too, as any published review is, technically, that of a "critic"—but that may make too much sense for WP. 🤷‍♂️) 2604:3D08:537D:DF00:6C12:BA9D:1EFC:69B4 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I originally had this wording: It received mostly negative reviews from critics and was considered by some to be the worst entry in the Star Trek franchise. Captain Parmenter added the "panned" wording, which we should probably avoid since that term isn't sourced in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't done hard research on this, but hasn't just about every entry in the Star Trek universe been considered "the worst entry in the Star Trek franchise" by some people? Is that really a helpful phrase to have? Tduk (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In this case sites are using the Rotten Tomatoes data to back-up the statement, as it indicates that reviews are significantly worse than all other entries in the franchise other than Star Trek V, which has only a slightly better score. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The review scores just indicate it was considered bad (or review bombed), and that on average it is doing worse, but I don't think we can source that to claim in a meaningfully different way that it was "considered the worst entry", that feels a bit WP:SYNTHy. Referencing the scores should be enough. Tduk (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There isn't any WP:SYNTH here, we are quoting multiple sources which made this claim specifically. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 yes, totally agree. Agree Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair to quote the individual sources, but I think presenting it that way is giving it undue WP:WEIGHT as well. If there is a reliable source that mentions it being considered the worst by many, then that would be different, and there may be such a source. Tduk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a source in the reception section which tells us that multiple critics are calling it the worst entry in the franchise, that is why it is in the lead. I agree that it would be an issue if we had just copied a couple quotes from individual critics calling it the worst one and then put that in the lead as if it was a widespread opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Which source? Tduk (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I see it's the screencrush source. Is that an WP:RS? Tduk (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the wording to match what is sourced in the critical response section, that should handle the awkward wording that OP raised this thread about. If there are further concerns about the wording being used we can continue this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Nicely done! How do we define many vs. most in situations like this? I'm not aware of the conventions we follow on these kinds of articles. Tduk (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm not necessarily saying that the wrong word was picked; you probably picked the appropriate one. I'd just like to know going forward. Tduk (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Again, I haven't done this research - but maybe someone else has an idea. I think upon release, it's common for any new science fiction franchine branch to be considered "the worst in the franchise" by a good number of people. This is related to jumping the shark. Do we really have evidence that it's more so in this case, or is there just increased coverage of the negative reviews? Tduk (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right to question the use of "many" and "most", which are used as examples of weasel words to watch out for in articles, if unsupported. In this case we have the ScreenCrush source whose writer has done the research and summarizes various critic's views as presented here. Regarding a commonality of critics to pan new sci-fi franchises, we should also have a reliable source that says this before we apply it to article content. —ADavidB 02:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with that, thank you for your reply. I guess my worry is that other franchies branches received equal criticism, but if we don't place that in their respective leads, are we giving it undue WP:WEIGHT by including it in the lede here? Tduk (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has just removed the "mostly" weasel word again (and was quickly reverted) so is it time to revisit this discussion? Tduk (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: Filming

One of the worst parts of this production is the quality of the footage itself, as it looks like it was shot on an iPhone. Can the article please specify how the digital workflow differs from Discovery, because Discovery did not suffer from these problems. Something went horribly, horribly wrong here, and I can't imagine how this ever made it to the release stage. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place for you to discuss your feelings about the film. Feel free to provide any reliable sources that discuss such an issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be selectively reading the query I posted. Please address my request for expansion pertaining to the lack of production and filming details. What type of cameras were used and what kind of digital workflow was employed? Most quality articles contain this info. If you like, I can tag the relevant section. Do you prefer that? Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. We are all volunteers here, this isn't a service where you can request specific changes be made. Again, you are free to provide any reliable sources that discuss the apparent issue you have identified. If you do not provide those sources then there is no guarantee that another editor will go looking for them instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have added this information to all of the GA in the Star Trek articles you worked on to GA class. I don’t think my request is unreasonable or out of sorts. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you, you can't demand other editors do things for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is demanding anything. Requests to add material are made on the talk page. The problem here might be on your end. Perhaps you've taken ownership of this page and feel that anyone who posts a request is making a personal demand? If yes, that’s a "you" problem and I would suggest taking a step back. Or, alternatively, you could add the requested info like you did to all the other Trek GAs. If the answer is that you just don’t know what kind of cameras and workflow were used, unlike the other articles, that’s fine, just say so. No need to keep playing games, as someone else will come along and add the material. Thanks for your interest. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel you are making a personal demand because that is what you are doing: "Please address my request for expansion..." I would love to get this article to GA level, but I also work on a lot of other articles and this one is not my priority right now. I will get to it when I get to it, but anyone is welcome to add anything in the meantime. I am not the owner or admin of this article. So if there is something specific that you would like to be included and you don't want to do it yourself, you should provide specifics (including reliable sources) so myself or another editor can add it for you. If not, and you are just expressing general interest in the article being expanded, then I don't think there is anything else that needs to be said here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's no need to keep replying. I made a very specific request about adding production info about cameras and workflow from the very beginning. You appear to keep replying saying I haven't made that request. You are welcome to that opinion, but you don't WP:OWN the page. I'm hoping that since you aren't interested in fulfilling this request (even though you've added the same info to many other articles, which is odd, but oh well), you will allow others to fulfill it. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been a very strange interaction. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC on Wording of lede re critical response

The lede of the article currently states that “Most critics gave it a negative review, with multiple finding it to be the worst entry in the Star Trek franchise.” There has been some contention about whether this is appropriate or accurate for the lede of the article, but discussion on the talk page ended with no clear resolution. Seeking a broader idea of what is appropriate here. I would also like a consensus to exist next time someone tries to make a change in either direction; I am not referring to the issue of whether the phrase should be in the article at all, here, though that is another relevant question. Tduk (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that a full answer would require looking at some sources/knowing something about the subject, which I've not done. However, answering the question in principle, I think that when the reception is towards the extreme end (e.g., best ever/worst ever), then giving readers some flavor of that in the lead is appropriate. I don't see anything inherently problematic with what's written now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with the premise of this RFC question. There is no significant contention about this wording, and there is clear consensus for how to handle it in the above discussion. We updated the wording to align with the sources, which the involved editors agreed with. That is a clear resolution as far as I am concerned. Tduk expressed some concern with the use of "many" / "most" in this kind of wording and ADavidB correctly pointed out that we go off the reliable sources. They then kept posting about concerns with the wording, including in this RFC question, so it is clear that they don't like it and want it to change. My position remains the same, we go off what the reliable sources say. If someone wants to have a constructive discussion about the available sources and possible alternate wording then I am happy to have that discussion, but I am not interested in changing the wording in the article to something that the sources don't support just because an editor seems to personally dislike it. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Meta

I believe this is an inappropriate use of the RFC process. Multiple editors took part in the previous discussion and agreed on the current wording, this one editor continued to take issue and has not followed WP:RFCBEFORE in trying to resolve their concerns through other avenues before resorting to starting an RFC out of nowhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I attempted to restart the conversation when another editor voiced the same thought; what we have is the regular editors to this article disagreeing with the infrequent ones. That's why I thought outside input was required. How many times should I have asked for an opinion - the most recent time is still there, unanswered. Tduk (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that I was not the editor who started the original discussion, nor was I any of the later editors who attempted to edit the lede. Tduk (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

How many times should I have asked for an opinion if there is no support for your position, you don't just start an RFC to try circumvent that. It is a misuse of the RFC process. Like I said, WP:RFCBEFORE should have been followed at least. If not WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As I've said, I haven't stated a position in this RFC - I was creating it because I saw several other independent users, over time, in some way expressing an opinion that the lede should be adjusted; the number of users who supported the lede in the previous discussion was two. After the latest user was immediately reverted, I asked if it was time to discuss this further, as more people seemed to have thoughts on the matter. I only came here because I saw that there was a dispute going on, and I don't feel that both sides have been represented well. Re: WP:BEFORE, most of it doesn't apply in this case, as it isn't a dispute between two editors; I thought outside input was needed, and I don't think the people who disagree with the presumed consensus are frequent editors. I think further discussing that distracts from the issue at hand. Tduk (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You are inventing a dispute where there is none. If the editors who were reverted felt strongly about changing the wording then they would have come to the talk page, not dropped the issue. It is very weird that you have taken it upon yourself to help elevate their concerns if you do not feel the same way. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, actually, your claim that if there is no support for your position, you don't just start an RFC is wrong. Sometimes RFCs are needed in exactly that circumstance. While "no support" usually means the community disagrees with you, sometimes "no support" indicates an WP:OWNERSHIP problem that needs to be resolved by inviting in the rest of the community. RFCs are usually an effective way to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, there are other steps that should be taken to get additional input in a discussion before jumping to an RFC. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Per RFCBEFORE – which is optional – there is exactly one (1) step that should be taken before starting an RFC: "Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC". It goes on to list multiple methods that count as "trying to resolve their issues", but any attempt at all counts, and the discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Section 31#Awkward critic description (five editors, 19 comments) definitely counts as an attempt to resolve the issue.

Now would be a good time for you to put together an answer to the RFC question, instead of trying to prevent someone from asking their question. When an editor tries to stop an RFC, it always makes me think they're afraid that their "side" will lose, if the whole community gets an opportunity to see and answer the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are there "sides" and "losing" now? That is not how Wikipedia works. I and other editors had a constructive back-and-forth that led to the current wording, which is based on multiple sources. Tduk tried to continue the conversation but there was no interest from other editors. I understand why they feel there was "no clear resolution" to their concerns, but from my perspective we came to a consensus, updated the article, and moved on. I disagree that the above discussion counts as RFCBEFORE since their issue is that they got no responses in that discussion, and their attempt to resolve that issue is starting this RFC. I would have expected them to at least ask for input from relevant WikiProjects first. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are there "sides" and "losing"? Because you are acting like you're on a "side" that opposes the view of the person who started this other RFC, and you're acting like it would be a problem if a consensus formed in this RFC that disagreed with you. It's naïve to say that there aren't "sides" in disputes; if there were never any editors taking sides in disputes, we'd have no Wikipedia:Contentious topics designations, and edit warring would be non-existent. The reason I bring this up here is because of your behavior.

Do please stop banging on about RFCBEFORE: anybody can see that Tduk raised their concern above and got multiple responses, including from you (or at least from someone using your account – would you like me to report it as a possible Wikipedia:Compromised accounts?). And all of that's assuming that RFCBEFORE is required, which is a false assumption. If you'd like to double check my claim, then drop by Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and start a new discussion there. Your question should say something like "Isn't RFCBEFORE absolutely mandatory even though it doesn't say that? And isn't it true that a discussion in which the OP posted 10 comments, I personally replied six times, and two other editors replied once each (not counting the IP who originally started the discussion) is too little discussion to meet the RFCBEFORE requirement?"

From my POV, any RFC that comes to a consensus is a win for Wikipedia. The way to do that does not involve trying to obstruct people from starting RFCs when they have genuine concerns, even if you think those concerns are misguided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is turning into absolute nonsense. What do you mean someone else is using my account? Hard to assume good faith when dealing with comments like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to assume your constructive participation in this discussion when you say "they got no responses in that discussion" and I can plainly see six responses from you in that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am clearly talking about their later comments that got no response. I and other editors had a constructive back-and-forth that led to the current wording, which is based on multiple sources. Tduk tried to continue the conversation but there was no interest from other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Please provide links (plural) to "their later comments that got no response", so that we can agree on whether or not there actually were "later comments" (plural) that received no response.
• Please explain why you believe RFCs should not be started just because "there was no interest from other editors".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't going to be serious I don't see why I should continue this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's okay with me if you stop discussing this point. You could even {{hat}} this subsection without any objections from me. I'll continue to believe that your unsupported claim about "later comments that got no response" was a misstatement, and that even if there had been any such un-responded-to- comments, that it doesn't make any difference at all about whether the RFC is permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Pretending that there are no un-answered comments from Tduk in the "Awkward critic description" section above is absurd, and anyone else who sees this discussion will surely agree. You are just making things up and I do not understand why. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I never said there were "no" unanswered comments; after all, in any finished discussion, someone has to have been the last person to comment. But you asserted the existence of multiple unreplied-to "later" comments, and I see only one (1) that could fit that description – the last one in the section, in which Tduk says that Zenphia1 boldly edited the article to remove the same phrase that Tduk objects to (which you reverted), and inquires whether further discussion should happen. Well, this RFC is the further discussion. I don't know why you object to it happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)