Talk:Star Trek

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

It depends on where are these paragraphs located. If they are in the lead, we don't need citations. If they are in the article's body, they should probably be deleted as OR. Dimadick (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: The uncited statements I am referring to are in the article body. Please ping me if you would like me to add citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: and other interested editors: There are still uncited statements in the article. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern? Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Star Trek

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues have not been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• As it stands, now, I would not pass this for GA (nor would I put it up for consideration).
  • Just considering the body prose and the "Notes" section, 15.68 percent of the article is completely unreferenced.
  • Regarding sourcing and citing, I'm concerned about: (a) the relevance and reliability of J. William Snyder Jr., 'Shèun Ominira-Bluejack, "Woody Goulart", That Hashtag Show, Edit International, the student newspaper Harvard Crimson, and Letterboxd (twice); (b) a 2021 citation to Comic Book Resources; (c) the fansites TrekUnited & startrekcomics.info; (d) citing the IMDb thirteen separate times; (e) citing Blu-ray.com; and (f) an almost 1-in-7 rate of citing primary sources.
  • Then there're at least a dozen times where claims made weren't actually verified by the specific sources to which they were cited. I stopped counting after a while.
  • Mightn't File:Borg dockingstation.jpg constitute a derivative work?
  I haven't the time or ability to work on the majority of these at this time, though I will watch this discussion and lend my input in discussing/hammering one thing at a time if others're so inclined. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delist. Concerns remain, minimal progress since this was opened. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2026 (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.

"Chief Medical Officer (Star Trek)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chief Medical Officer (Star Trek) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 8 § Star Trek things until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

"Red Squad (Star Trek)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Red Squad (Star Trek) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 8 § Red Squad (Star Trek) until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)