# Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series

41,943pages on
this wiki

## Episode Prod NumbersEdit

Hey. Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but if you look at the episode list of TOS, at the end of the first season it says Operation-- Annihilate! is 030. If you look at the second season Catspaw is also 030. If it's a typo could someone elso fix it. I thought I'd screw it up. As it is the only reason I noticed is cause my episode list is in the order the episodes were made in. -- IndyaCD3 (signed by Sulfur since it was unsigned, but the edit prior to mine)

The reason is because the Menagerie, Parts 1 and 2 were marked as 16 + 17. Since they were all done at the same time, I renumbered those to 16A and 16B which brings the rest of the numbers are in line now in the other two seasons. -- Sulfur 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

## Reverted editsEdit

• Memory Alpha editing policy discourages putting links in header lines -- i've been trying to remove it, but people seem to want to continuously revert the style
That's because it's a good policy to have links in subtitles, if there is a definitive article on that subject elsewhere. It is a clear simple way to signal "this is not the right article to go into depth in this" without having to say that in clunky prose.
• Numerical lists seem necessary to me because the individual episode pages now include seasonxepisode notation (4x20) etc, and this makes it easier to reference them back to the season article in that manner
• The season lists are groups of links which are not prone to need edits anymore, as such, since they are duplicated on a few separate pages, are best represented by templates.
• There was originally no reference in some series articles to the following links: NBC, UPN, Paramount Pictures, ILM, etc -- these topics should be listed with the series they apply to. I'm suggesting adding them to a browser table, but i am open to suggestions, as long as these topics are acknowledged in the article somewhere.

Please do not remove links to things if they don't fit your idea of how the article should be structured just because you don't like the idea of a browser table there, you shouldn't start reverting edits and removing links to these topics, orphaning some of the articles.

If you wish to suggest rearranging what I did, do so, but it was a poor choice of a preliminary move to simply remove all of my changes out of hand.

I'm open to suggestions from all users of course, how this information should be arranged, or to discuss removal of irrelevant information. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:43, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

## Missing production infoEdit

There's a LOT of important production information not here, and generally Memory Alpha lacks a lot of stuff that matters from a production and design point of view, probably again by policy.

But really, people DO want to know, somewhere, somehow:

• who played who
• who designed the sets
• who composed what music
• who designed the amazing dresses that look like they're about to fall off the girls
• who was the guy at NBC who decided the dresses had to stay up

At least ONE good article on Federation fashion trends, please, to talk about things like pointed sideburns and miniskirts and beehive hair. It's just way too much fun not to invent rationales for why TOS looks like the 60s and TNG looks like the 80s... ;-)

## Time SpanEdit

I had no idea the TOS series was set in 2265-2269, I was sure it was something like 2266-2267/8. Where was this info found? (Other then the VOY ep I mean, where was it found that the series is that time period?) Terran Officer April 23, 2006 11:13 AM (EST)

We know that the five year mission of Kirk ended in 2270, from the Voyager comment.
• 2270 minus 5 equals 2265. The way the episodes are spaced out between those years is open for interpretation, but the Star Trek Chronology suggested that the episodes produced in 1966-1969 took place between 2266-2269. makes sense.
• "The Trouble with Tribbles" date was specified as being 105 years before the DS9 epsode "Trials and Tribbleations", taking place in 2373
• 2373 minus 105 equals 2268. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

## A Prequel?Edit

Ok, so on a message board I like to go to, someone is aruging (With definitions from a dictionary I might add) that this series naritive is a prequel to TNG/DS9/VOY, I don't know if I would go that far. I would call the other series are sequals. Terran Officer April 23, 2006 7:46 PM (EST)

Um... a prequel is only a prequel if it was made AFTER a show or movie but was set BEFORE that film or movie. For example, Star Wars: Episode I is a prequel to Star Wars: Episode VI because the former was made after the latter. X-Men is not a prequel to X-Men 2, however, because X-Men was made first. That said, what does this have to do with the artice? --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, I guess apologise if I made this in the wrong area, I just wasn't sure where else to go, thought this site the best place to go. Thanks for answering my question. Terran Officer April 23, 2006 8: 24 PM (EST)

No need to apologize. I was actually being lighthearted about it, I just forgot the little smiley at the end. Anyways, I guess this would be an okay place to ask this since it would be good background info if the series were considered a prequel, but since it can't be a prequel, well... there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I know I am 8 years and 8 days late to this, but how can someone be arguing - with definitions from a dictionary - that Star Trek is a prequel to The Next Generation? From Oxford - "Prequel: A story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." Ah, but I think I found a source of confusion...from Dictionary.com - "Prequel: A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age." If you don't read this carefully, you may think that something which "prefigures a later work" could make an original series a prequel to it's sequel. However, you would be misunderstanding "prefigures" because in that context it can only mean that the later work is something that was already produced in the real world. :D --Hmich176 (talk) 12:58, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

## TOS-Remastered discussionsEdit

### New TOS VfX and other tweaksEdit

As many of you know by now, starting September 16th, TOS will air in syndication with redone vfx. These will include new exterior shots and battle scenes, planetary backgrounds, and repairs of small goofs. It is likely that this will present minor, yet noticable changes to continuity. I suggest we create a policy to deal with this situation before the episodes begin to air. -- Jaz talk 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, to me it seems like the place to ask but, Where will these air? I thought I heard it being released on DVD, not airing. - <unsigned, but Terran Officer>
Reportedly on CBS on Saturday nights. -- Sulfur 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is MA's policy is dependent on whether Paramount views them as canon? I'd say that is a factor, but, then, MA includes TAS. In the remixes' favor, the Okudas are involved. Are the Originals or the remasters more likely to be referred to in future productions? I'd guess the new stuff will become authoritative. -- StAkAr Karnak 00:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think MA will greatly benifit from this. This is a great opportunity to make visual observation of ships, especially ones that previously appeared only as a speck of light or reused set prop. -- Jaz talk 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article on the official site. The series will be syndicated, just like TNG and DS9. You'll need to check your local listings to see when it will air. --Julianbaischir 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
(Proposal by Dracorat moved to bottom)
What do you think? -- Dracorat 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Should be ok, All they are changing is specia; effects, for images and effects shots simply have one thats says something like "196# Version", and "200#" Version--Terran Officer 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see this whole thing as as big of an issue as everyone else apparently thinks with regards to canon-- Paramount is endorsing it anyway, so yeah. The dialog will remain the same, and unless I am missing something, most likely the effects will remain the same, just simply upgraded with the times-- that shouldn't affect canon. At best I see this as an extraordinary opportunity to expand the background section of TOS-- and affected pages -- with side-by-side effects shots to show the upgrades, etc. --Alan del Beccio 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, since no one has posted it yet, here is the article from StarTrek.comwbm. --Alan del Beccio 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't see many "major" changes being done -- Earth will have some clouds for once, the "photon-torpedo-phasers" from "Balance of Terror" will become phasers, and the "NCC-1017" will probably be given a more likely reg number. Tis not the end of the world, as we know it. Half the things we wrote off and mentioned in the background anyway :p Sep. 16? wow, that's closer than I'd've expected. - AJ Halliwell 20:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that it was kept under wraps for so long without a leak. Pleasant surprise, something to look forward to, and best news I've heard in a while. I wonder if TAS or TNG will ever get the Remastered treatment? -- StAkAr Karnak 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that this is only in the beginning stages, and it will be a couple of years before they are done with the project, which is being scheduled for release on HDVD or Blu-Ray, NOT syndication.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to the article on StarTrek.com (Link above by Alan), it states it'll be in syndication with a date for HDVD, etc. unknown presently. The syndication order will not be the same as we are familiar with with TOS. - Enzo Aquarius 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So they've been at this awhile and never told us...hmmm...
Anyways, this might be a good place to start the Great Debate...will we be wholesale replacing images taken from the old TOS shows with their "upgraded" replacement images?Capt Christopher Donovan 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I talked about it with Jörg and others on IRC the other day, and would have brought up the same discussion. Actually, I think there are two things we have to clarify: "Do we accept the new stuff at all?" and "How do we handle possible new contradictions?"
Regarding the first, I think we'll even have to - just like we accept the ST:TMP Special Edition with new effects and all, we should accept this new edition of TOS. Both are official products done by the franchise owner itself. However, this shouldn't mean we have to replace all stuff that is not "enhanced". Just like we accept both TOS and TAS screenshots of Kirk as "correct", we should do the same in the case of "model" vs. "CGI" Enterprise. It might be best to have at least one of each for the most prominent starships and other visuals. Regarding the proposed footnote - again, we don't "consider things canon". Something either is or isn't, and we're not the ones to decide, just the ones to archive what is there. I don't like the idea of trying to define something like "second class canon", and restrict the new stuff to background sections, which is what that proposal basically does.
Regarding possible contradictions, we already have the guideline of presenting both/all possible versions while making note of the contradiction - the same should probably apply here. -- Cid Highwind 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Cid brings up a good point - there is historical precedent for remixed Trek - Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Significantly, we have a separate page for Star Trek: The Motion Picture - The Director's Edition, and the DE is the version currently accepted as canon. Creator's intent may play some role, as TMPDE was Robert Wise's original vision for the film. Does nuTOS merit a separate page for each episode? -- StAkAr Karnak 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, that is for the DVD release. Not for just the movie itself. -- Sulfur 18:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct. The story itself stays the same, so we shouldn't have two different episode articles - we don't have different articles for the already existing episode versions (uncut vs. cut), either. -- Cid Highwind 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of releagating the new footage to some "second class canon" status. Whether we like it or not, it will be the DEFINITIVE footage from this point onward. How well we take that is in large part, I think, dependant on what they eventually DO to the footage. Reports range from simple scene recreation "as is" but in modern quality, to major changes to ships and fx. The "beauty image" of the new 1701 looks pretty good to me, no major changes evident...Capt Christopher Donovan 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is entire possible this is all overkill too. I could easily see people just making notes inline in the article if something is different.
-- Dracorat 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not advocating any position at this point; just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks. Makes for stimulating conversation. -- StAkAr Karnak 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We should really wait untill we see what it is, they said an update of the scenes, not new scenes, so it's possible that we see the same ones, just in CG, in that case, I still recomend a picture for the "196#" version, with another one for the "200#" version. Seems pretty simple for me.--Terran Officer 08:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was reading an article at TrekToday [1] in regards to nuTrek. It looks like they'll be adding 'CGI crewmembers' to ships and starbases. Looks like we may have new people to add to such articles like Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. - Enzo Aquarius 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is meant as no way disrespect, but I have seen so many versions on what is and isn't going to be added and changed that I don't know what to believe anymore. I think it was a nice idea to try to figure it all out beforehand, but we are all truthfully in the dark here. We are just going to have to wait until next week. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Having seen the "making of" videos at StarTrek.com, it's pretty clear that 95%+ of the material is going to be unchanged. Every CG shot that has been shown so far is a direct recreation of the original shot, just in better detail and quality. The editing won't allow them to insert entirely NEW sequences, and the shots they replace have to be the same length as the originals. The only things that are apparently schedules to go "out the window" entirely are the "blobs of light" alien ships. The other scenes will be essentially as originally shown, or with minor tweaks.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

### Proposal by DracoratEdit

(See above discussion)

Article text

Bottom of Article Text

Revision notice
Information is considered canon and pertains to original airing of TOS, with specific VfX changes marked in footnotes at the end of the article.

### Wish list?Edit

Since nuTOS is still in production and they are likely to use MA as a resource, what would you like to see changed? One thing that I've never cared for was the design of the planet killer. I recall reading that the original design was much different, but not practical to build. Since it was never referenced again, a different design wouldn't violate canon. I'd like Yarnek to keep the same design, but maybe to move around more and have others of his race visible. In "Arena", maybe the Gorn can retract his faceted eye like a membrane, making his physiology agree with Slar's. Would be nice to see a Gorn ship too. Curiously, the press reports have said that only 79 episodes of TOS will be redone. I hope they don't skip "The Cage". -- StAkAr Karnak 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

### Replacing Images with new VfXEdit

copied from the other thread created for possible further comment...

I'm going to grab the bull by the horns on this issue (and maybe set off a firestorm) by suggesting we start getting our resources together now so that as the "new" versions come out each week, someone with the ability to do so can start getting us good screengrabs to replace our old ones.

I've seen some of the remastered live-action footage, and it looks like it was shot yesterday! The new FX sequences are 95%+ straight replacements for the old footage (same motions, camera angle, length, etc). They've said they'll be changing a few things, like the "blob's o'light alien ships" (to be replaced with new design models) and replacing a few of the "stock shots" with slightly different footage. None of it should in any way cause any "canon concerns", as it is being very carefully crafted to be as true to the original as possible.

I'm sure we all want our wikipedia to look the best it can, and the remastered TOS footage is the best way to make sure it does, in my opinion...Capt Christopher Donovan 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that replacing is the right way. I think that having both available is the best option. That will allow people to see what's changed, even if those changes are only very minimal. -- Sulfur 12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't really know how this is any different than what we already discussed above - however, I saw some "preview" footage since then.
Regarding "re-mastered" scenes that are otherwise unchanged, I don't see why we should keep the old ones - if the new version has a better image quality then we can simply upload new images of that. However, I really don't think it is necessary to go wild and make it a project to change any and all images from a specific episode immediately after it has aired.
Regarding new CGI scenes that basically "recreate" old effect scenes, we shouldn't necessarily replace all or keep all. The comparison to the right, for example, shows that Miri's planet looks different now, and we shouldn't ignore one representation for another.
Regarding everything that is completely "new"... this issue is still open, and should probably be dealt with if such a scene ever appears. -- Cid Highwind 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, doing the "before and after" bit just eats up memory in the server to no good effect. The picture posted above to me PROVES that we need to be getting the new images in the articles just as fast as we can. The new image on the right is clearly superior in quality, and would make for a better presentation of any article it was in. The old caps are going to make the articles look "shabby", (again IMO)...Capt Christopher Donovan 06:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted - however, as you can see, it's not the only one, so complete and immediate removal of all TOS screencaps is not going to happen. As far as differences of whatever type exist, I even think we have to have images of both (where important, not on every page that includes such an image) if we want to be "as accurate as possible". -- Cid Highwind 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides "memory on the server" is not a problem anymore, as I'm told and I think it would also be good to have comparison images so users, who are critical of the new effects, can see how closely camera angles were matched and how truthfully to the original the new effects have been integrated. I can get the exact frame of a given shot from a given episode (like I did with the image above) so we will have the direct, clickable comparison pic. I think by keeping the old (admittedly rather low quality effects) and adding the new ones MA will not lose quality but gain some, as Cid stated, to be "as accurate as possible", please everyone and be just complete. My two cents. -- Jörg 08:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't advocating the IMMEDIATE deletion of all "old" caps. I just wanted to get this whole "new cap vs old cap, which cap" debate out of the way so when the "new" eps DO start airing we can hit the ground running in terms of getting image caps that we want to do.

If storage space is not an issue, then I guess we COULD keep the old caps in storage for comparison purposes. However, within the context of the articles, I think we should feature the new caps, and the old caps could be accessed through a link on each image's individual Image Archive page.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is only a debate because you made it one. I agree with Cid and Jorg. The simpliest and easiest way to go about this is to have to separate images, placed side by side, as shown up above that presents the before and after VFX. Either way both should be presented in the main part of the article. Doing such will not affect the quality of the article, nor will it affect that accuracy. As I stated way way up above, everyone seems to be making a mountain out of this molehill. --Alan del Beccio 13:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Er, yeah, what they all said. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that images should be composited together sideways, like the image above. By either having both versions of the image available displayed together horizontally or compositing them together horizontally, it will make each image easier to see as the image size is calculated vertically. By doing either option, the image will not increase vertically and the image size will stay the same. --Defiant 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think combining the images was never the plan, that was just for this one example collage. As soon as the new TOS has aired (still more than a day) images of the new scenes and corresponding images of previous TOS should be uploaded (or matching shots from new TOS of images we already have here), not combined into one image and put side by side on the relevant pages, like, on Miri's planet, for example. -- Jörg 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I may enter the discussion late, but I already stated my pov somewhere else: "It would be cool if the re-mastered image of the ship could be used, but it is not re-mastered, it is re-created and as such should count as an addional model. The original imagery and model is still and should remain valid as our source of information." As to the placement of images. Well, since I think there should be no replacements the images should be uploaded seperately and then inserted the usual way into an article, that is one by one in vertical alignment, not next to each other. -- Kobi 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I have to indent really far now. Popping in ever so more late, I have to agree with what has been said. When it is a re-mastered scene, one where the only change is that it has been made HD, but no CGI model or anything, I don't see the problem with simply replacing our images. With the CGI stuff, or anything that looks different (I know not all of the CGI stuff will, but I am grouping them in the same place), I would like to see both images put up. I don't think they should be made into a collage, though. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the old and the new for comparison; and keeping them separate (not collageing.) Going around replacing the old with the new doesn't make much sense. We should also consider there are people who won't like the new version, and prefer the old one, and should still archive it.... - AJ Halliwell 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry Jorg, I somehow thought the above image was two individual images side-by-side, not two pasted together. Apply that thought to my above comment. --Alan del Beccio 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we should create a page for the project and list whatever is digitally replaced, such as the Enterprise, in the order they appear in the episodes. --Defiant 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Jörg is correct, image compositions were never really suggested here for general use in articles, except for the one that was specifically created to show the change between old and new in one image. -- Cid Highwind 21:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not in agreement with the general consensus (I still favor straight replacement of images), I'm glad to see the debate I knew had to be take place. This way we have a set policy that everyone knows about and can follow. Ultimately, that is a plus for ALL of us, since we're not having to make it up "on the fly" with a lot of "edit wars" and such.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

### A page to list changed visual effects Edit

Now, about that page I suggested, listing new visual effects. Do others think it's a good idea or is it just me? Also, what about a name for the page? --Defiant 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't even know yet what visual effects, if any, really are "new" (I suppose you're not talking about simply "redone" effect shots here), we could wait until such an effect appears. However, what could be done in the meantime is to split the section about "Re-mastered Trek" now residing on TOS to its own article. This article could then be the place to also list effect changes as they occur, until there are enough to warrant an own article. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - As indicated in the comparison images above, having watched "Miri" and "Balance of Terror", new effects are very few. It appears that even original star positions/movements are the same, with CG ships & planets (complete with retro-grain) composited in with identical movement. (The most striking change to me was a change in the "whoosh" the Enterprise makes in the opening credits; the closing credits are unchanged and do not include any mention of remastery work.)
I'd suggest that any notable changes, such as Icarus IV, can be noted in the background sections of related articles. They'd be more useful discussed alongside related text than segregated to a Remastered article. On a similar note, I'd also suggest that a separate article for Remastered Trek is unnecessary. What was done is akin to when TOS was cleaned up for the Sc-Fi channel airing; it's just another layer to the show and not a separate work. A paragraph in the TOS article would suffice. -- StAkAr Karnak 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Related... a comparison of BOT has been posted here for those that haven't yet seen it and want to see what people are talking about. -- Sulfur 04:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

### "Red Planet" in the opening sequence remastered as "mars"Edit

As most of you might have already noticed, the "Red Planet" Enterprise flies by in the opening sequence now features "Valles Marineris", one of the most prominent features on the martian surface and the deepest and longest canyon in the Sol system. In regard of this unmistakeable feature of Mars, does MA consider it canon to call that planet Mars? --BlueMars 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have a clear consensus to use anything from opening sequences as valid resources in in-universe articles. Even disregarding this, where would you put that information so that its "canonicity" really matters? -- Cid Highwind

I thought of adding it to the Mars-article, as this would be the best shot we have of the planet showing almost its entire disc. Furthermore, I see no problem using material from opening sequences. No one ever stated it's not canon and so far it never contradicted any information given in the episodes. We're already using it in various articles. --BlueMars 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the opening sequence. They really seem to have used a map of Mars for their CGI model of that planet - however, there's no reference to this planet actually being Mars. I even suspect this planet to show up as several "planets of the week" as the show progresses, instead - color and cloud formation look very similar to File:TOS planet high orbit.jpg, after all. I still think it could be added to Mars as part of a background note stating how an actual image map was used for some CGI sequences - but not in the main body stating that it actually is Mars. -- Cid Highwind 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Even when we saw Earth in that episode with the annoying kids, it wasn't Earth. -- Harry talk 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the image to the Mars article under background info. --BlueMars 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

### Add airdates to respective episode articles Edit

In my opinion airdates of the remastered versions should be added to their respective episode-articles. Furthermore I am against creating seperate articles of the remastered episodes, as I already opposed the special edition of TMP having a seperate one. However, creating a new article for every remastered TOS episode would result in even more confusion. --BlueMars 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One big problem with those airdates, they're fairly inconsistent. From reports I've heard, some markets got both Balance of Terror and Miri this past weekend, while other markets are only getting one episode a weekend. Also, in addition the TMP Special Edition page is actually for the DVD release as opposed to an alternate version of the movie page itself. In that respect, it's warranted, just as the (theoretical) future releases of these remastered episodes on DVD would then warrant their own article(s) (likely similar to the current TOS DVDs, one per season, but no assumptions can be made). -- Sulfur 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we should add the earliest airdate. Shouldn't be that difficult to find them out. I'm from the EU and have no idea which episode(s) aired last weekend, so our folks from America are needed I guess;-) --BlueMars 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

### Linking "original" and "remastered" images Edit

If we're using both original and remastered images, and even have shots of the same scenes for comparison purposes, we should link the different images to each other. For that, I created two templates, {{corresponding original}} and {{corresponding remastered}}, to be used on image description pages to link to a corresponding other image:

```{{corresponding original|TOS planet.jpg}}
{{corresponding remastered|Janus VI.jpg}}
```

Usage, in each case, is: {{corresponding original|FILENAME}}, with FILENAME being the actual image filename without "File:" prefix. -- Cid Highwind 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I added the usage information to the two templates and crosslinked them (in the noinclude section, of course) so that when this forum gets "lost", the usage will still be evident from looking at the template itself. -- Sulfur 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! :) -- Cid Highwind 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

### New materialEdit

An issue has come up regarding new material in the remastered episodes that does not contradict old material. The question is, do we want to accept the new material as canon. I say yes.

The first one of these seems to be Starbase 11 Shuttlecraft 1. That name comes from dialogue in the episode. In the new remastered version, the shuttle is labeled as "Picasso". I do not feel this is a contradiction. The callsign might still have been "Starbase 11 Shuttlecraft 1", and if the shuttle had been labeled Picasso, we would quite frankly not have been able to see it in the old version anyways. I don't see a problem moving this article to Picasso, and considering the new name canon.

How do we want to handle new material that does not contradict old material? How about new material that does contradict old material? Whatever we decide here, I think we need to update content and resource policies, and not just keep citing this discussion whenever we make edits. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: It seems that it has been moved, but I still think the general idea of how to handle new material should be discussed here. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe (hope) there won't be any real contradictions with the Remastered episodes (unless you're such a purist you cannot accept the new visuals). Stuff like Picasso is not contradictory, it only adds a little to what we already knew. Like StarTrek.com says [X]wbm, "Now, with a designated name and registry, we can add this shuttle to the long list of Starfleet ships!"
So yeah, I'm all in favor of adding Remastered data to Memory Alpha. And if that means we can move articles to a name that fits the existing schemes better, we should do so, IMO. Remastered data should not be only 'background' material.-- Harry talk 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a show of good faith, on the part of MA to its readers, would to include links on the TOS page in the "remastered" section to all the new or updated references. --Alan del Beccio 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that had already been clarified in the above discussions? Anyway, as this is an "official" production, I don't see how we could not add new information from these episodes to our articles. This isn't even restricted to non-contradicting information, I believe. Should there be a real contradiction between a TOS and a "TOS-R" episode, we should handle that just as we handle a contradiction between a TOS episode and, say, a TNG episode - by noting both facts, not by omitting one of them. Of course, this means that we should add proper references - for example by using (TOS: "Episode_Title" Remastered), as was already suggested. -- Cid Highwind 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, is quite likely NCC numbers will be added to the effects shots of the USS Exeter, USS Potemkin, USS Hood, USS Lexington and USS Excalibur, when they come up for remastering (in "The Omega Glory", and "The Ultimate Computer"). I'd be very surprised if these weren't from the Okuda/Jein list. 80.168.29.18 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ack. Good point. And also a bit horrible, because the Jein list is such complete nonsense, and produces horrible numbers. But if that's really what they're going to use... -- Harry talk 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, we already have the registry of the USS Potemkin (NCC-1657). --OuroborosCobra talk 13:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

### Remastered episodes and CanonEdit

I was just wondering if the original versions of the episodes are more canonical than the remastered ones. For example, the planet in "I, Mudd" suddenly got rings when it was remastered, but not in the original. Which is canon?--Tiberius 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going by the viewpoint of the studio, I think the remastered episodes are now the official versions of those events. -- StAkAr Karnak 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Memory Alpha's stance has been, and should continue to be, discussed in Ten Forward. The existing thread is at Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series#TOS-Remastered discussions. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If we are going by the viewpoint of the studio, TAS is not canon. :) -- Sulfur 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a question about "MA's stance" - rather, about the studio's stance. In that case, you may choose between "both" and "they don't care, anyway"... ;) -- Cid Highwind 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

### Scenes cut in Remastered Edit

The remastered episodes cut some of the scenes from the originals to make room for the increased amount of commercials on modern TV. Are these scenes restored on the DVD versions of the remasterings? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.239.209.220 (talk).

Yes. The "remastered" DVDs feature the full episodes, not the syndication versions. -- Sulfur 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

## Episode dates?Edit

What is the source for the episode years? 24.158.130.161 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Their original source were reference books such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology. The dates in these references were derived from references in the films, and was apparently used by production personnel on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine when making the episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" since they set the events of the original series episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" 105 years before the DS9 episode (set in 2373). Lastly, the Star Trek: Voyager episode established that James T. Kirk's first five-year mission (as seen on TOS) ended in 2270. This means that the original series was set between 2265 and 2270. Hope all that helps. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

## To Go BoldlyEdit

It has recently been added that "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is grammatically incorrect, however, according to [2] it seems fine because the reason for split infinitives being wrong is because infinitives are one word in Latin. You thoughts? By the way, I used to be 24.158.130.161. - 66.191.237.124 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

## DVD'sEdit

when will the digitally remastered Original Series be on DVD?

The last I heard, it will be sometime in Fall of this year. Let me check on that though just to be sure there haven't been any changes or exact release dates announced... --From Andoria with Love 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Trek Remastered "will be released on combo DVD/HD-DVD disks by fourth quarter 2007"... keep in mind, though, that the episodes released on these disks will be the first 29 of the original series first season; that means it won't include the likes of "The Doomsday Machine", "Amok Time" and what-not. That's the latest news on this topic; for more see this page here. --From Andoria with Love 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The second season will be released on regular DVD August 5, 2008.[3] - Adambomb1701 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When the 3erd.96.248.19.186 11:37, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

## Page Move?Edit

Shouldn't this page be renamed "Star Trek (The Original Series)", more accurately reflecting its title at the time of transmission and formatting it to the method used by almost every article on MA? It would seem to be more accurate than "Star Trek: The Original Series"! --Defiant 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I left this question on the relevant talk page but, as it has not been replied, I'm posting it here!

Shouldn't the page at "Star Trek: The Original Series" be renamed (and moved to) "Star Trek (The Original Series)", more accurately reflecting its title at the time of transmission and formatting it to MA's page-naming method? It would seem to be more accurate than "Star Trek: The Original Series"! --Defiant 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Rodney McKay 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alas, the current official title for the series is Star Trek: The Original Series. We should stick with the official title. --From Andoria with Love 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I wasn't aware of this. What makes it "official"? --Defiant 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in a little late... Generally, we use a "qualifier" in parentheses if two different entities share the same "natural title" and no other title can be found for either one of them. In this case, we do have a good other title for the series. It is in widespread use (including even the official website itself), well-known and allows for all six series articles to have similar titles.
I think the article should stay where it is - although you might want to add a redirect, if you think it's important. -- Cid Highwind 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect has been added -- Rodney McKay 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Defiant: Maybe "official" wasn't the best term, but the title does at least seem to be official. CBS (and formerly Paramount) has been referring to Star Trek as The Original Series (or TOS) for quite some time. Even the DVD releases (and, I believe, the VHS releases as well) are packaged with the name Star Trek: The Original Series. The official site also refers to it as such ([4]). --From Andoria with Love 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would add that there is a lot of stuff that still uses just "Star Trek". In most TV line-ups (including CBS) and schedules, it is "Star Trek", not "Star Trek: The Original Series". Just thought I would throw that out into this "official" debate. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On StarTrek.com, the series is listed only as "Star Trek". I don't see anywhere that says "Star Trek: The Original Series" is the official title, though I concur the name is only used to distinguish it from everything else Star Trek (if a parent/friend/whoever was at the store per a request of getting the original Star Trek series on DVD, they might find it much easier when it's labelled "The Original Series" in plain sight; even if the fact is obvious to all those trekkers/trekkies out there). If "Star Trek: The Original Series" was now officially the title, then why do the remastered episodes air with nothing but "Star Trek" on the title? --MikeRS 09:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

## History as seen from The Original SeriesEdit

Before I am criticized, yes, I know the history changed with TNG. However, I thought it might be interesting to see how the historical events in the original fitted before the revisions. I am assuming for this exercise that Kirk commanded the Enterprise from 2194 to 2198, based on the predilection that 200 years after 1996 is 2196 ("Space Seed") and that episode is set two years after Kirk assumed command. Here it goes:

1959 Zefram Cochrane is born. ("Metamorphosis")
1992 Eugenics War begins. ("Space Seed")
1994 SS Valiant disappears. ("Where No Man Has Gone Before")
1996 Khan flees Earth.("Space Seed")
2018 Sleeper ships are retired. ("Space Seed")
2046 Cochrane vanishes. ("Metamorphosis")
2096 Earth-Romulan War. ("Balance of Terror")
2162 James Kirk is born. ("The Deadly Years")
2194 James Kirk assumes command of the USS Enterprise. ("The Menagerie, Part I")

According to the Animated Episode ("The Infinite Vulcan"), the Federation is founded an hundred years before the episode, or circa 2098.

Several points are important to note: 1. Zefram Cochrane lived in the era of the Eugenics Wars. 2. Warp drive may have been invented as a result of a government project during the wars, just as in the Second World War, there were introduced atomic bombs, jets, and advanced rocketry. 3. The timeline diverged from our real world timeline in the years following the aforementioned WW II.--Airtram3 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your logic flawed. The 200 year figure was an estimate, Kirk was holding onto the idea of it being a DY500. Do not forget, in Human language 200 years could be 150+ to -250 years. well more likely 240 years. Example, "The civil war was about 150 years ago." But if you go look at the current date, and the date of the Civil war it is more then 150 years ago, but I don't know the exact date, so I chose one that is close, but round. In Star Trek, the best figure is an odd one like "47 years". Since your calendar is built so rigidly around the 200 year figure, your dates are inaccurate. --TOSrules 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I put this gently, as I loath literal minded people? This is a fun exercise, compiling approximate data values and arriving at a general view of history. It is not meant to be a literal truth, nor should it ever be. Why can't you look beyond your literalness and see a pattern? Since you are incapable of seeing beyond your limited horizons, here is the history in your terms (everything approximate): All events predate TOS:-235 years: Zefram Cochrane is born:-200 years: Eugenics Wars, SS Valiant disappears; -148 years: Cochrane disappears; -100 years: Earth-Romulan War; and -32 years: James Kirk born. Now, do you see a pattern, or would you like me to simplifiy it further for you?--Airtram3 09:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On those terms, I don't understand how this helps. --TOSrules 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read your page, and I feel you are arrogant and unpleasant. I feel you seek confrontation. I played your game, but it ends now.--Airtram3 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then I apologies, and respect your opinion. --TOSrules 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Accepted.--Airtram3 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Now now, this is no place for bickering. Simply put, the years TOS took place in were intentionally left ambiguous, and to some extent, Airtram does have a point. Consider the point of view of this website if this was 1975 and TOS was still a single parent to a bastard child (TAS), and you used only the dialog references made in those series, there would be some credence to this timeline. In fact, the Star Trek Concordance (a forefather of this very website, if you will) makes a few subtle references to TOS/TAS taking place in or around the 22nd century. Here are a couple other points:
• It was stated that Lincoln "died three centuries ago, hundreds of light-years away." $1865+300=2165$ ("The Savage Curtain")
• Kirk being told that he was going to be locked up for "200 years" and him replying "That ought to be just about right." $1968+200=2168$ ("Tomorrow is Yesterday")
That's an awful lot of coincidentally bad estimating, if you want to play that card. So, before TNG ever came along, how could/can we make the assumption that "in Human language 200 years could be 150+ to -250 years", when a majority of the "estimates" indicate otherwise? With that said, I'm really not sure where this is supposed to go since TNG and ENT did happen and made all the points above more or less null and void... --Alan del Beccio 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that as we write the history based on the later series, we are not seeing how the revised hisotry has changed the timeline as set in the original. By comparing the two, I believe we can enhance our understanding of the new timeline and see both its strengths and weaknesses. The function of an encyclopedia is more than the recording of facts; it is the analysis of those facts and how they relate to a larger picture.--Airtram3 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My EE Calendar was formed to circumvent this problem. Although I didn't use it to place the date of the series, but rather separate the debate of how much time passes in the series, and what the date is. It shifts the debate to not when did this episode happen, or that episode happen, but simply what is the date of EE0. The Exploration Era(EE) Calendar can be found and explained on this site here (http-//supernovawd.netfirms.com/Timelines/Calander.htm). In my opinion it follows your idea, but is more useful in it's approach. --TOSrules 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

## From Talk:Split infinitiveEdit

Do we really need this article when this could just be in background notes? (As they previously were) Plus, a majority of the article seems to be 'essay' or 'report'-like. - Enzo Aquarius 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the original background note was rather one-sided and expressed a personal opinion rather than a fact. Also, it didn't really belong in the TOS trivia section, since both TOS and TNG employ the split infinitive in their openings. Wratched 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So fix the existing background note, and add new ones to the others. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite so indeed. Nonetheless, if this article stays, it has been properly formatted. - Enzo Aquarius 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks nice. Still, I don't mind if you think this article should be scrapped. Wratched 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this article may have some merit by itself now, it's quite extensive and it's been deorphanized. - Enzo Aquarius 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
While the page is certainly better formatted, I don't think it belongs here. It's only reason for existence is because a line spoken in the opening narrative of TOS/TNG is a split infinitive. Big whoop. That is all a split infinitive has to do with Star Trek, and it is a topic of little to no significance – nobody's going to do a search for split infinitive and this is an encyclopedia for information directly related to Trek, not a dictionary for terms that some people feel might have something to do with the franchise. We're not going to start creating articles on grammatical terms and then relate them to Star Trek, noting what they got right and what they got wrong. You might as well drudge up an article discussing how "airponics" is used on-screen instead of "aeroponics", among similar insignificant details. At most, this info belongs as a minor background note on Star Trek: The Original Series, where it was originally. So, let's all regain our sanity and get rid of this page, shall we? --From Andoria with Love 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So... can we re-merge this back with the TOS page now? :D --From Andoria with Love 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is the will of the great bird of the galaxy. Let it be merged before we end up in his great list of wrath. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I don't feel like including this in the TCT. Nonetheless, I agree with the merge. :P - Enzo Aquarius 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Split infinitive has now been merged with Star Trek: The Original Series. Enjoy. --From Andoria with Love 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## The "Wagon Train" Myth Edit

Gene Roddenberry, in many interviews, admitted to intentionally misrepresenting the series as "Wagon Train to the Stars" to increase his chances of selling it to network executives who (according to Gene) had a fixation on Westerns during the mid-sixties. Star Trek was never seriously patterned after "Wagon Train". This is an urban myth, and the comment should be struck from the series' description.--Tombstone 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not to mention, the reference is poorly done anyhow. A reference book is supposed to explain information, not make you go looking for more immediately. Granted, this is the web (so linkage is expected), but, regardless even of the veracity of the claim, you're introducing material that is confusing to the reader in the first paragraph of the article. If it *is* true, it should be rewritten.

## Date or Year reruns began (after original show canceled in 1969)? Edit

Hi I'm writing a story about someone and it takes place a couple of years after Star Trek (original) is canceled. I need to know when the reruns began airing so that I can accurately say that the character watched the reruns (if they were airing) or not (if airing took place at a later date) Does anyone know the answer? If so please email the answer to: cinderedna2@yahoo.com Thanks-- 69.121.165.149 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)"

I believe they began the same year they were canceled – 1969. I'm relatively positive they were being rerun by 1970, though. --From Andoria with Love 04:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Our local station in New York, WPIX, began running Trek a week or two after the last NBC run. And, continued to run them until 1998. - Adambomb1701 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell us anything about your story? --WTRiker 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

## Forum:TOS Canadian PremiereEdit

I just saw this on the Main Page's On This Day:

"Star Trek: The Original Series premiers in Canada, two days before its premier in the United States on NBC."

Wow. I had no idea. Which episode? Was it The Man Trap, Where No Man Has Gone Before or a completely different one? Igotbit 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

## Spilt the Pages? Edit

As TOS-R has become it's own entity, I think we shoud have a "TOS" page and a "TOS-R" page and (maybe?) classify them as two different series so as to maintain the TOS page as a TOS only(66-69) page and have the TOS-R page as a TOS-R only (06-08) page. Whaddya think?

(As a secondary note, trekmovie.com has the dates for the airings of "Season 2" of TOS-R. I have them all so how do I add them?)

(As a tertiary note, on the TOS-R episode pages (if it becomes a separate entity, as I hope it will) maybe adding the new effects shots under the heading of "New Effects Shots" or something of that sort?) --WTRiker 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would it become a separate entity? It's the same episode, just some redone effects? -- Sulfur 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but to preserve the "originality", for lack of a better term of the TOS I think the TOS-R should become separate. --WTRiker 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

## Copyright Edit

For some reason, the episodes of the first season were not copyrighted until 1978. This is unusual, as "The Cage" was copyrighted in 1964. The second and third season episodes were copyrighted at the time of production.

That doesn't make much sense to me as in America things are copyrighted on the date of creation. As long as you have proof of creation and airing an episode certainly counts as proof in that regard. So the reason I bring this up is that I'm wondering if there is some sort of resource that specifically outlines this that we can link to. – Morder 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's questioned this over on Talk:TOS Season 1:
• "Any legal researchers have a reference to the Star Trek copyright cases? Did Paramount just threaten people, or is there an actual court case? Paramount couldn't actually "copyright" the episodes in 1978, since they'd been published in 1967; any notices claiming 1978 copyright dates are simply fraud plain and simple. They might have *registered* the copyright in 1978, perhaps; it would be worthwhile to get some more specific information on this.
69.202.75.39 04:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
TOS Season 1 provides the following link: [5].
I really think we should just remove the note on both here and Season 1. I agree that it doesn't make much sense.– Cleanse 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed both notes for now, as it's validity has been questioned twice.– Cleanse 07:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research and it turns out that 1978 was the time when copyrights were extended to life+70 years and that copyrights granted before 1978 were only valid for 28 years with a 67 year extension for a total of 95 years. The new copyright laws extended it quite a bit especially since Gene Roddenberry was still alive at the time. So Paramount might have attempted to recopyright them in 1978 to effectively extend their copyright using the new terms. However, I have been unable to find any record of this. – Morder 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Airings of TOS mentioned under Background Edit

I see that the section on TOS repeats is mostly up to date, with TVLand being at 6am, etc. But the G4 section is out of date. G4 gave all Trek the shaft a while ago, and so it should not be listed as currently airing on G4.

## How they did the special effects in TOSEdit

Hello every one,

I'm doing a project on visual effects in television and I'd like to do it on the original Star Trek show, the 60's version not the re-dun version. However I can't seem to find any info on how any of the effects were actually produced. I find old effects like this extremely interesting and I was hoping some one could point me in the right direction. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.205.39 (talk).

Try The Making of Star Trek or The World of Star Trek (see its cover for an example of how it was done). Additionally the special features of the DVDs have info, such as what is written on the Stratos page as taken from the TOS Season 2 DVD. --Alan 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this should help a lot. :) The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.205.39 (talk).

Apparently The Special Effects of Trek would be a good source too, suggesting you can find it. --Alan 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

## Airdate Order Edit

At this time the page is showing a detailed list of TOS episodes in production order and a link to a separate page with a less detailed list in airdate order. I think it should be the other way around. The production order may be more chronologically correct by starting with WNMHGB but the airdate order is currently the official order. The 2004 full-season DVDs and the 2007-2008 remastered DVDs are in airdate order so that's how most people would watch it. StarTrek.com, CBS.com, IMDb.com, TV.com, Scifi.com and Amazon.com's Unbox Video Downloads all list the episodes in airdate order. Wikipedia lists the episodes both ways but the airdate order is listed first. Memory Alpha lists the episodes of the TNG by airdate order so it should do the same for TOS. If no one has any objections, I'm changing it in the next few days. – 218.215.136.95 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since tables are sortable anyway, I think the best idea would be to combine the individual season tables into one (with columns for any possible information) and eventually delete the separate article. -- Cid Highwind 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, they are sortable! I never noticed that before. Still, I think airdate order should be the default and The Man Trap listed as 1x01. – 218.215.136.95 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the 1x01, etc. being assigned to airdate. This is clearly the season & production order. However, since the DVD collections now list the episodes in airdate order, I think it only makes sense that they also be listed in default airdate order here, which will only help confusion with the DVD collections which is the primary way anybody will be viewing them now. That puts The Cage at the bottom with Year 3 and makes more sense anyway since The Cage is historically not part of the broadcast or series syndication or video distribution.--Dogg 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

## Pilots Edit

The only pilot listed is "The Cage". It is listed as a separate category, however, it is traditionally included by Paramount in the third season collection in two forms: the color version as broadcast and the mixed color and black & white version which appeared on VHS collections for two years prior to the color broadcast. Theoretically these should be follow the third season if not included as part of it (confusing). Also, Paramount counts the pilot as two different episode numbers: 01 (color) and 99 (B&W/color). Is it worth listing this distinction? Certainly it is a notable fact and presumably creates a certain amount of confusion for those not familiar with the background. Also, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is listed only as production no. 2 and broadcast episode no. 3, but not as an unaired/unreleased pilot, which is in fact as different a version as The Cage is from the Menagerie. This version included a different introduction, different Main and End Titles, different Act-Ons and additional footage. Altogether about half the amount of deleted material from The Cage pilot. It would seem this also counts as a different episode than the broadcast version. The fact that it was never broadcast or released on video in its original form does not negate the fact that it officially exists or did exist. In the absence of any official studio designations, I would propose something like this: PILOTS: The Cage (color) 0x01/01, The Cage (B&W/color) 4x01/80 (or 99?), WNMHGB (pilot) 0x02/01.5.--Dogg 03:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally? It was included in airdate order on the DVD collections. Which happened to be last. About 30 years after the rest of the series indeed. The distinction of production number information should be found in the article about the episode. -- sulfur 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

## Why Different Production and Airdate Order? Edit

Forgive me if this is explained someplace else (but it should also be here), but why exactly were the episodes aired out of production order? I've never read a satisfactory explanation for this. Certainly, as I have read, the network putting a stronger episode first the defined the regular cast and look somewhat better for building an audience has merit, but Trek shot a good many shows before the first airdate, any of which were better than The Man Trap. That leaves me with the one theory that makes the most sense. The Man Trap had the fewest visual effects of most of the early episodes, suggesting it was one of the first to be fully processed by the first airdate, while others still had additional work to be completed. Again this is just a theory I don't recall ever reading that anywhere, but whatever the actual reason is, it is certainly something that needs to be included in any article about the production of the series.--Dogg 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

## Replacing images with remastered versions Edit

OK, so most of the exterior special effects are already covered on this -- that's great and all, but there seems to be no effort to do the same to the live action frames. Seriously, the difference is night and day with these and it'd be great to all pitch in to replace screenshots with crisp, colorful remastered versions. I've been doing some myself, but it's a huge task for just one person! --MikeRS 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't replace. Add. Show the differences in the same way that the exterior shots are done. -- sulfur 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that we should not be replacing.. the remastered versions are based on digital remastering of digitally stored episode master copies -- and while they make great watching, some generational degradation began to occur. I personally find some of the remastered color renderings and contrast to be a bit substandard compared to a good copy of an original. It was done to homogenize the episodes and I understand that, but every time they re-digitize, it looks a little different and different isn't always as good a thing as you suggest. -- Captain MKB 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see why they should be added with a new filename. If you look at an image's history, you can easily see the original version there, so what's the real point in a different name? Additionally, the remastered versions are actually taken from the original film negatives, transfered into high definition and cleaned up; they aren't based on previous digital copies, they're completely new transfers from the original material. --MikeRS 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They should have a new filename, and indicate that they are the remastered version. We even have a way to show the original version on a remastered image page and vice versa. We do this specifically so that people can compare the images easily. If you look at various TOS episodes, we have galleries of remastered images on them. Same reason. More information readily available means that it is easier to compare. -- sulfur 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

## TOS Remastered to air in Canada on Space Edit

I just saw a commercial on SPACE which informs that they will begin shown TOS Remastered, starting with a TOS-R marathon on September 7 showing the best episodes as voted by viewers. This is the first time TOS Remastered will be shown on a Canadian TV channel, so would this note be important enough to be included in this article? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

## Question about the Classic series Edit

The following was moved from Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise.

Hi. There is one thing about the original Star Trek that bothered me. I wonder if any of you can help me, please.

The first season had an episode named "Miri" after the character. In the third season Kirk married for the only time to (and I am not sure of the spelling) Mirimani. No matter how you spell it, it still comes close to the name Miri. Was this a coincidence?

Thanks

Fanofpucks

## Controversy over TOS Remastered Edit

I think the controversy over the alteration of the episodes needs discussion in this article beyond just Nimoy's "Shame on them". After all, the original work of all the special effects artists - considered state of the art in the 1960s - is being replaced and forgotten (doesn't matter if Okuda and company kept some original ideas, it's not the original artists' direct work anymore). I know for a fact Paramount agreed to include high-def versions of the original episodes, pre-Remastered, on the Blu-Rays because of demand (since they didn't include them on the HD-DVDs). And the whole issue has underscored the tug-of-war between those who want to preserve TV history and those who want to abandon it either because they personally don't care, or they feel it's a way to get closed-minded or unaware new viewers interested in Star Trek because it suddenly looks all shiny. 68.146.81.123 14:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is citeable can be added- especially comments from other Trek actors/staff, or Paramount officials(regarding DVD releases)- but we cannot just add opinions of fans who dislike the remastered version and feel the original is "forgotten"(even though it isn't- I still have and watch my original DVDs)--31dot 14:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

## Episodic listings... Edit

I may be fairly new to this wiki and seeing as how most series usually go in order accorindg to the "date"(Stardate), if you arrange the dates according to air date, which is very nifty btw, they're still out of order and heres amazons list of episodes [6], yes i know ep.99 "The Cage" that I'm pretty sure is the pilot episode. Now I'll trust Amazons list of episodes not only for the fact that they usually have someone; research the episdoes, ect., but also they have the orignal air dates again excluding ep.99, unless that actually came out in 1988. Fanboy since 2009. Live long and prosper. Pharuan Undearth (talk) 07:30, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

## Splitting off remastered info Edit

I think the vast majority of the remastered info should be split off to an article that covers all the remastered stuff, including TNG and any others that may be done in the future. - Archduk3 07:22, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed in principle, I do think some more thought on this is required:
• Even "remastered", where they are now, also makes sense: TOS under TOS and TNG under TNG
But on a practical level and in my view even more importantly,
• The huge amount of work it entails to change internal links. There are now quite a few links such as [[TOS-R|''+text'']] or a variation thereof like [[TOS-R|''+text'']], and their TNG variants. I'm not sure if this "bottable". This is one of those things, the implications of which could not have been foreseen beforehand, and has now grown out of proportion. Had we've had the power of foresight, some sort of standard had been established way back...--Sennim (talk) 09:43, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have not adequately explained the core reasoning for this. Currently, remastered redirects to (the same location as) TOS-R when it could also mean TNG-R. Instead of disambiguating the redirect, creating a Remastered release (or some other title) page as its new target would be a better solution for the long run, since there will be more remastered releases. Updating, or even just IDing, links like you described would be pretty easy with a bot, as this would only require a simple text substitution (both your examples would just have the text before the pipe replaced with [[TOS-R (which arguably is what should have been used in the first place)) instead of something more complex like what would need to happen with the DrexFiles links being "templated". The actual amount of the text here that would be split off is almost immaterial to the goal, as any page for all remastered releases would have to cover TOS-R to some extent anyway, splitting just reduces the amount of duplicated text between the two locations. - Archduk3 13:55, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I'm not agreeing to Duke's statement that the redirect automaticaly redirects to TOS-R, as there are many that redirects to something like [[TNG#Remastering|+text]] Star Trek: The Next Generation#Remastering, the long term reasoning makes sense, so I'm not opposed to that, as long as the adjustment of the numerous internal links can be 'botted' ([[TOS-R|''+text'']], or [[TNG-R|''+text'']], much applauded, methinks)--Sennim (talk) 01:14, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
Upon re-reading and re-thinking Duke's arguments, I'm tendering my Support vote, it does all make sense..--Sennim (talk) 11:44, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

## Episode numbering - production order vs original airdate Edit

This issue has been addressed in different ways above and caused quite a lot of confusion. The episodes in MA TOS episode tables seem to be numbered according to production date. Memory Beta has the same numbering. The order of releases was quite different. startrek.com orders the episodes according to release date and this is the order on the DVDs.

This confusion results in editors changing the ep numbers frequently back and forth. E.g. Mirror, Mirror has been changed between 2x04 and 2x10 several times within the recent 50 edits.

Which should be the correct numbering? And how to prevent editors changing the numbers? --(boxed) (talk) 21:53, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

There's not much we can do to prevent people from making undesired changes; such is the nature of a wiki. 31dot (talk) 02:54, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Right, not prevent, but perhaps reduce. Which is the correct numbering? If this was stated clearly somewhere, it would help. --(boxed) (talk) 03:19, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone addressed this? The episode numbering is still in the wrong order. I'd think it should go in the order they came out since that's the order they were meant to be viewed in. It's incredibly confusing to see the episodes in the wrong order when every other site has them done properly. List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes Something really needs to be done about it even if it's just a small note above the episode lists saying which way they are meant to be listed. --DestinedForHell (talk) 06:48, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
How do you know that the order they came out "the order they were meant to be viewed in"? Maybe it's everyone else who should be like us; everyone else doing something different isn't necessarily a reason to make a change. Maybe, but not necessarily. 31dot (talk) 08:46, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
The order should be based on broadcast air date. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is Episode 3, not Episode 1, of Season 1. --Hmich176 14:55, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
Note that MA has chosen to based them on production number. If you want to see them in order by airing date, please simply click on the up/down arrow above the "Original Airdate" column.
Note that there's also two links right above the episode list to make it easy to find that order:
-- sulfur (talk) 15:58, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with them listed based by production number, per se, since you can reorder it yourself. However, the inherent problem is that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is listed as 1x01 when it is actually 1x03. The information should be presented in the most accurate and commonly known format, because if someone who comes to this site knows nothing about Star Trek, having that episode as 1x01 instead of 1x03 would be confusing to the reader when they compare it to the DVD release. That said, I believe a simple solution would be to remove the episode number column. It's not necessary, really. -- Hmich176 20:23, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

## Worth mentioning anywhere Edit

To my knowledge, this series is the only Star Trek series to have two pairs of main characters and main actors (one each) with the same first name as each other, yet were not playing/really each other. Two Jameses (Doohan (real) and Captain Kirk (fake)) and two Leonards (Nimoy (real) and Dr. McCoy (fake)) Is it worth mentioning on any page, or just useless trivia/nitpicks?--LauraCC (talk) 17:31, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Is it also worth mentioning William Shatner and William Campbell? In Correct (talk) 08:34, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

## Mr. Kyle Edit

Can I include Lt. Kyle on the list of recurring people? In Correct (talk) 08:35, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

He is already in that list. Do you want to add him in the list of regular/main cast members on this article? Tom (talk) 15:26, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I meant the list on this article. He appeared in almost a dozen episodes which should qualify him to be on the list here. In Correct (talk) 09:20, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

He's not a main character though. The list there is for the main cast. -- sulfur (talk) 10:10, October 18, 2016 (UTC)