Talk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series): Difference between revisions

By /

Line 150: Line 150:

Brooks isn’t listed in the cast list for the episode, at least not in the on-air credits, so he shouldn’t be listed in the cast here. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Brooks isn’t listed in the cast list for the episode, at least not in the on-air credits, so he shouldn’t be listed in the cast here. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

:There is actually a sort of credit there. The first shot of credits is “Thank you, Avery”. [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 18:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

:There is actually a sort of credit there. The first shot of credits is “Thank you, Avery”. [[User:IKhitron|IKhitron]] ([[User talk:IKhitron|talk]]) 18:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

::That’s not a credit, that’s an appreciation (specifically for his giving permission for the producers to use a clip from his poetry album). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63076438/ it says 23rd century here just like other star trek tv series. Renegadeviking (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renegadeviking Source: “The issue is that “Starfleet Academy” is set in the 32nd century, an era so far into the future Kurtzman and his team need to invent much of its design language.” Please also see WP:CITINGIMDB. — Alex_21 TALK 00:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renegadeviking: Additionally, if you read that source you linked it explains that the series moved from the 23rd to the 32nd. – adamstom97 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series) to Star Trek: Starfleet Academy as other star trek shows. – Vilnisr T | C 10:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how page moves are decided. Feel free to continue the above “Possible move” discussion. – adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Please submit an RM if you believe it should be relocated. Happy to locate you to our moving policies if you are unaware of them. — Alex_21 TALK 12:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a Reception section

Why is there nothing about the series’ reception? ~2026-37481-5 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. — Alex_21 TALK 02:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You know the reason why. They will censor any source that does not comply with certain way of thinking. For instance critical drinker review. ~2026-41961-7 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is “critical drinker”? Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is so relevant the series creators are directly attacking him. He also makes a ton of money from his content.
could at least mention the overwhelming negative audience reception, unless that bothers you for political reasons ~2026-48320-2 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Series reception exists. If you’re going to have a whine that your user-generated content isn’t accepted here, go read MOS:TVAUDIENCE and WP:USERG. Also the Critical Drinker is irrelevant here, tell him to come back when he has qualifications and isn’t just your favourite unemployed YouTuber. — Alex_21 TALK 21:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is so relevant the series creators are directly attacking him. He also makes a ton of money from his content.
Could at least mention the overwhelming negative audience reception, unless that bothers you for political reasons ~2026-48320-2 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a reliable secondary source that actually discusses it, from somebody with journalistic qualifications – your brags about money are irrelevant here, you’ve been all talk and no action. Provide the sources. — Alex_21 TALK 22:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is Screenrant accepted as a reliable secondary source? It’s highlighting the poor performance of this new opus:
https://screenrant.com/star-trek-starfleet-academy-streaming-struggles-january-2026/
Critics aren’t the end-all be-all of how well a TV show is perceived. ~2026-62487-5 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenRant is considered a controversial source, as it comes under WP:VALNET. User-generated reviews by random internet-browsers also aren’t the end-all be-all. — Alex_21 TALK 22:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why you would use a link to sources for video games, this seems irrelevant. As per WP:RSP, Screenrant is “considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons”.
Whqt do you mean by “user generated reviews by random internet-browsers”? Not sure I understand that part. ~2026-62487-5 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having recently seen Screen Rant used as a source to settle an unrelated dispute elsewhere, it is considered generally reliable for non-BLP statements, per WP:SCREENRANT. Having said that, while the article generally goes over the negative reception by viewers, the Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings only get a minor mention at the very end of the article; I don’t personally see this as sufficient for including audience scores or reviews specifically yet. – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If Screenrant’s acceptable, then I’ve no issues with that. However, I agree, there is not widespread discussion about it. One source does not make the concept notable. — Alex_21 TALK 05:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its dogshit and they know it, thats why the article is currently locked. ~2026-46272-6 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked for editing because temporary accounts don’t understand Wikipedia policies. — Alex_21 TALK 21:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an edit with factual information that was reverted within minutes. Is the purpose of this site to be a reference point or drive sales for corporations? Someone please enlighten me Jeyne Reyne (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeyne Reyne Happy to! Please read WP:CITINGIMDB, MOS:TVAUDIENCE and WP:USERG (as per the hidden note in reception), and explain to me what parts of these guidelines you may not understand, and why this article in particular should violate them. — Alex_21 TALK 22:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they’re hidden then how could they be evident? Do you have some personal stake in the reception a television show receives? That would constitute a clear conflict of interest. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeyne Reyne If they’re hidden then how could they be evident? Hidden when reading the article, not hidden when editing the article, but you already knew that, didn’t you? That’s why you ignored the top three lines showing the very clear note. Do you have some personal stake in the fanbase? Are the the owner of fans? Why couldn’t you answer the question on what parts of these guidelines you may not understand? As well as why this article in particular should violate them? — Alex_21 TALK 20:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-37481-5
genuine fans (not just reactionary YouTubers) also dislike the show.
audience rating info sample:
Aggregator Ratings (Audience vs. Critics)
Platform Audience/User Score Critic/Pro Score Notes
Rotten Tomatoes 43% 87% – 88% Audience score plummeted from an initial 100% critic debut.
IMDb 4.2 / 10 N/A Over 38% of users rated the series 1/10.
Metacritic 2.6 / 10 66 / 100 User sentiment is classified as “Generally Unfavorable”.
Criticless 8% N/A Ranked as “Heinous,” the site’s lowest possible Iamhanuman (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All user-generated and irrelevant. And yet still nobody has explained why this sole article should violate Wikipedia guidelines and policy. — Alex_21 TALK 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 fair enough. I would have thought the nature of the backlash was of public interest. Iamhanuman (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, it can absolutely be included if there are widespread secondary sources that discuss the topic. — Alex_21 TALK 22:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 I’ve tried to reply to you on this. please confirm whether my reply came through. thanks. I cited a bunch of sources. Iamhanuman (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. As has already been discussed multiple times, these are all user-generated scores that violate WP:USERGEN and MOS:TVAUDIENCE. Please actually read these guidelines that have been linked multiple times. — Alex_21 TALK 01:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 hi there. I’m not talking about user generated scores. you requested sources. I provided multiple sources discussing the backlash. if my reply didn’t come through I’ll send the list again Iamhanuman (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 it seems to not let me post the links. I’m not so familiar with the editing side of Wikipedia.
You requested multiple sources. How are Forbes, Collider, Giant Freakin Robot, Slash film, Facebook, Jessie Gender, Sci-fi Odyssey, Damien Walter, Steve Shives, Second Wind? Iamhanuman (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Gender’s most recent video called “Starfleet Academy Discourse is Inherently Conservative” covers a lot of this ground. She is a recognised critic and one of the first critics to leave a review on Rotten Tomatoes so not just a “User review” voice. Iamhanuman (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fans, i.e. the general public is irrelevant these days. At least when their opinion is inconvenient. Only the small “enlightened” circles count, like Wikipedians and other fringe societies. ~2025-41668-92 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Wikipedians don’t want to accept the fact that the general public have roundly rejected this rubbish because it’s propaganda for the dying cult that Wikipedia relentlessly pushes, along with all the left-wing critics shilling it as entertainment. The current teeth-clenched acknowledgement in the article that the show’s gone down like a lead balloon is hilarious. —~2026-50292-5 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the generated response. Come back when you have qualified sources for any of this, and not unemployed podcasters. — Alex_21 TALK 06:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you mean by generated response and I’m just making an observation about objective reality. Critical Drinker is not unemployed if being a podcaster is his job. He’s self-employed and extremely popular. You clearly dislike him for political reasons because he speaks out against all media being corrupted by left-wing propaganda. —~2026-82306-9 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The show is clearly unpopular with the Star Trek fanbase, what do you personally stand to gain with this crusade of trying to obfuscate that is the better question at this point. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeyne Reyne Which parts of WP:USERGEN and MOS:TVAUDIENCE do you not understand? Kindly answer this question in your next response. Provide a source from a qualified professional critic that supports what you say. We are not here for you to just add your personal opinion. — Alex_21 TALK 20:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may label them as “unemployed podcasters” Alex 21, however it does not take away the fact that this series had the worst viewership in history. There is a video of a Spock toy sitting on a chair that received more viewership than the first episode. As for this other “professional Critics” no one seems to know why they are. At least The Critical Drinker (AKA Will Jordan) seems to give an honest opinion on the topic that actually reflects the opinions of the general public and not a few wannabe “elites”. Throttler (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Throttler Fantastic. Completely irrelevant hyperbole. Not a single coherent reply to the above. — Alex_21 TALK 03:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2026

However, reviews from the general public gave a 43% On the Avg. Popcornmeter. ~2026-47102-5 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Audience scores are not included in articles; this is user-generated content, which is generally not acceptable as a source. – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statement “Audience scores are not included in articles” is untrue as you can see audience scores existing in Avatar (2009 film) article: “Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of “A” on an A+ to F scale. Every demographic surveyed was reported to give this rating.” ~2026-57794-9 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an audience score in the sense discussed at WP:USERG, which is about purely user-generated online content that cannot be verified or relied on. CinemaScore data comes from a company that has a known, reliable metric of surveying actual audience members. – adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but @UmbyUmbreon made a vague statement which is incorrect as such. As you said, audience scores can be included but they need to be properly obtained. ~2026-57794-9 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

You need to include the ratings from regular people in this instead of just the possibly paid reviewers. ~2025-40884-28 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See the edit request above this one. There is no consensus that this article should be an exception to the WP:USERG guideline or MOS:TVAUDIENCE Manual of Style guide. – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“Regular” people are not qualified professionals. Y’all get paid for this? — Alex_21 TALK 08:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you aren’t a qualified professional, more than a little hypocritical. ~2026-61776-6 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I haven’t added my opinion into this article, and why we only use sources from qualified professionals. It’s that easy. — Alex_21 TALK 20:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice?

Given that the hidden comment at the top of the Reception section doesn’t seem to be getting across, should an editnotice be added?

I propose something like this, with an expiry date of 3 months from whenever an edit request to include it is requested, to give a sufficient buffer for the current season:

Per the relevant English-language Wikipedia content guideline and Manual of Style, audience ratings or reviews from user-generated sources should not be included in the article, unless a reliable source discusses these sources. This includes (but is not limited to) IMDb, Metacritic user score, and Rotten Tomatoes “Popcornmeter” scores and “Audience says” blurbs. No consensus has been formed which allows this article to be an exception to these guidelines; any such inclusions will be reverted. See the talk page to discuss and for more details.

What do we think? – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with this. — Alex_21 TALK 00:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Copied the above to Template:Editnotices/Page/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series). Haven’t actively set an expiry on it yet. — Alex_21 TALK 00:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn’t aware you were a template editor. Thanks! – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reaction not mentioned – only critic

There’s been such a divisive response to this show with people from all across the spectrum arguing about it. Strange that this is not mentioned in the article. Audience scores on various sites range from the teens to around 40%. Some are reactionary conservative talking points (anti-woke, etc) but many are long time fans fed up of Kurtzman era Trek. Iamhanuman (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three or four threads in this talk page already discussing this. – adamstom97 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 I don’t know why I don’t see this? perhaps my app hadn’t updated. thank you for pointing it out. perhaps the threads could be combined. Iamhanuman (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth discussion, by my count, even with the edit-notice. — Alex_21 TALK 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this should also be considered a comedy before drama ~2026-57276-1 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Brooks’ voice was used for a short monologue at the end of episode 5, but I’m not sure if that was old material from way back when, or a recording made explicitly for that episode. Especially in the latter case, I believe credit should be given unless Brooks stated that he didn’t want to be credited for it. ~2026-80078-2 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, it’s an excerpt from a 2007 album by Avery Brooks (used with his permission), not a new recording made for this episode. I don’t know if that means we should list him as a guest actor or not. AJD (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If he’s listed it should be made clear that it was archival footage. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks isn’t listed in the cast list for the episode, at least not in the on-air credits, so he shouldn’t be listed in the cast here. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a sort of credit there. The first shot of credits is “Thank you, Avery”. IKhitron (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a credit, that’s an appreciation (specifically for his giving permission for the producers to use a clip from his poetry album). Wellington Bay (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top