This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek Beyond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A fact from Star Trek Beyond appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The official facebook page has a colon. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as long as it isn't Star Trek beyond...Nsign (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The official Facebook page of Star Trek has repeatedly called it "Star Trek Beyond" with no colon, and every reliable source currently has it without the colon as well. For now, it should remain colon-less. Please don't let us turn this into that incredibly long argument about the "i" in "Star Trek Into Darkness". Sock(tock talk) 12:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. Ye Gods, no... Nsign (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
casting order keeps getting changed for no good reason
Is there any legit reason why Karl Urban and Simon Pegg keep getting placed above Zoe Saldana in the cast list, even though she's known for being the third lead actor in this franchise and the official cast lists always put her right after Pine and Quinto?
I'd refer to Memory Alpha's article about the movie, too. Mathe76 (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit this page so I don't really have a horse in this race, but I imagine they are being placed higher because they are more well known actors. 120.88.174.77 (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that even was the case, Zoe Saldana arguably is considered a bigger name with her 3 big franchises, anyway. Cast order is not a matter of popularity, or personal preference of the wikipedia editor, though. --Mathe76 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cast list in the infobox should follow the official billing order as given in the film credits or on the poster, as outlined at Template:Infobox film. For the previous two films they adopted an alphabetic format, as can be seen on this poster for Into Darkness. It's a safe bet the same format will be followed for the new film. If the billing order is different to the previous films it can be fixed then, but editors should refrain from setting the order themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the cast list is there any reason why we can't include the link for Simon Pegg there as well. I am a huge fan of the new movies, but didn't think Pegg was involved in writing it so I didn't even notice he was linked earlier. Redundancy isn't a terrible thing.
It makes viewing more efficient. Leaving a comment in the text code is just plain toxic. And part of the problem right now on wikimedia and Wikipedia pages
The order is still wrong. Official order (top billed) from the end credits for this movie is:
Chris Pine
Zachary Quinto
Karl Urban
Zoe Saldana
Simon Pegg
John Cho
Anton Yelchin
Idris Elba
Sofia Boutella
Joe Taslim
Lydia Wilson
Deep Roy
*whitherose* (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Cho, Pegg, Pine, Quinto, Saldana, Urban, Yelchin, and Elba [1] And what is listed in the closing credits title card is the same, except for Boutella and Wilson, who are added as two at a time after Elba. But that's it for the title cards. The closing credits do not list full ranks or names for the characters. For example, Cho's character is listed there simply as Sulu. If you want to add any other characters that showed up in the closing credits full listing, add them as a prose paragraph if they are notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
whitherose is correct regarding the cast list, which unlike the main billing is not in alphabetical order. And the first four do give ranks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
whitherose, Gothicfilm where are you getting that order? Links please. That's not from the poster, see the link HERE Is there another poster? Please provide link for that and which film version you are using as it contradicts my sources. The title cards in the closing credits affirm the order I listed. And the closing credits do not give ranks or full names to everyone. If there are multiple versions then show them. Same with the credits. Please provide screen caps on how they are credited in the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to point out that the poster shows the main credits - the billing block, which is used for the WP film infobox and lead, as seen on most WP film articles, including this one. It is not used for the cast list, which unlike the poster includes character names and often has a different order than the main credits, as is the case here. The film's cast list is in the order
WP:CONSENSUS for changing the credits in those three areas from how they are actually given in the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Gothicfilm, I'm fairly certain the title cards of the film are in the same order as the poster billing block (I've gotten them from the film itself), but I will defer that until I can review it again on the DVD. So please provide links to the official production notes if they are to be ordered different from the title cards. We agree for now that the role names as presented are correct? (e.g. John Cho as Sulu, not John Cho as Third Officer Lt. Hikaru Sulu.
WP:FILMCAST
says it can be any of the suggested methods: "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." so yes, this differs from the billing block infobox requirement.
I don't see how this can be
WP:BLUE what the cast order is. That's why I'm asking for references to production notes or something. The film only presents the closing credits and the title cards. And it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the order of first appearance in the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Your edit history shows you've reverted many different people who've attempted to restore the correct cast list since at least last July, and in all that time you never checked your DVD to see if perhaps you were wrong? It doesn't look good for your record. But then again, you also reverted my corrections to the editing credit in the infobox and the writing credit in the lead without bothering to see that they also were backed up by the poster, as well as the film. So you're not good at using your own preferred source, the poster. You just rolled back everything, ignoring the Twinkle guideline
WP:TWINKLEABUSE: Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Your edit summary said nothing about what I had done in my other two edits. Finally, I don't know what you mean by The film only presents the closing credits and the title cards, but if you're claiming there is no cast list you are again quite mistaken. Where did you see "John Cho - Sulu"? That only appears in the cast list, which I suggest you check on your DVD. When you saw "John Cho - Sulu", how could you also have not noticed that it was sixth on the cast list. Not first. Not alphabetical. In the future you should check your sources more carefully before reverting people. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll recheck the DVD, that's where I put the embedded notes the first time around back in July, including the 2 at a time. I put in based on the title cards back then. But you'll have to assume good faith on my part as well. I just want to confirm what order you want this article to go by: 1) Star Trek order of importance 2) Title cards main sequence 3) Production notes sequence? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as it is now, the version before your revert. As explained above: the WP film infobox and lead "starring" order is based on the poster billing block and the film's main credits. The article's Cast list section is based on the film's cast list, which unlike the poster and main billing includes character names and often has a different order than the main credits, as is the case here. It's done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DVD Checked: Main closing credits (title cards) at 1:54:21: Cho, Pegg, Pine, Quinto, Saldana, Urban, Yelchin, and Elba. So you must be getting it from something else than the DVD, because that's the DVD. So if you want to say it's just Star Trek order of importance or Production Notes order, then state so. It's not the DVD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to point out yet again that the WP cast list reflects the film's cast list, which includes character names and often has a different order than the main credits, as is the case here. Where did you see "John Cho - Sulu"? That only appears in the cast list. The film's cast list scrolls down the screen a few seconds after the film's main billing. Do you really not get this? - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this is by the full closing credits list then, not title cards. That's fine. I'm changing the embedded note to reflect that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was fine as it was. What is it with your need to put unusual elements in this article? I've restored the hidden note to per cast list, not poster billing or main credits. Don't use weird ambiguous phrases like per closing credits full cast list first section, do not list secondary/minor characters, not title card or poster billing. All the credits are "closing", the main credits are not the "title card", and there is no "first section" in the sense that you apparently mean. The proper term is "Cast list", which the note explains is distinct from the main billing. Your instruction "do not list secondary/minor characters" is ambiguous and was not agreed to on this page, and should be dealt with separately from this current discussion if someone edit wars over that. If you want your own version you need to give a good reason for it and get others to agree. Finally, we don't put a link for a poster in as a hidden note, particularly when it's not the best source and it's unnecessary. People can find the poster on their own, as they're left to on all other articles. (I would like to change the poster seen in the infobox to one that displays the billing block, but that would be another discussion.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using title card / opening credits orders is not unusual. It's a legitimate way of ordering the cast, especially in cases where the closing credits don't give any ordering of significance like by first appearance mixing major and minor roles. I'm not pushing for that for this particular film anymore, but merely to state that it is a valid sequence as well as block billing. If you want to exclude the actual posters and their links that indicate billing that's fine too. I'll assume those are readily available from other searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Graham87 has made an edit that this movie is Chinese as well. There are no reliable sources we usually use (BFI, AFI, Variety) that show that this is the case. As of yet, AFI nor Variety have assigned a country to this movie (perhaps it's too soon after release). I took the edit out, but if anyone knows of a reliable source stating this movie is also Chinese, throw it in. Cheerio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:B5D0:6794:AF3A:3685 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:9421:7B9E:854F:1903 (talk) [reply]
I noticed that as opposed to answering this question, User:Graham87 deleted the above message off the talk page, which is a violation of WP Guidelines on Talk pages, and fairly rude as well. Is there any reliable source that says this movie is chinese, other than a single editor adding it in last week without sourcing? --Cheerio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:9421:7B9E:854F:1903 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was removed again, twice, without answering the question. User:Graham87 has added that the movie is Chinese, without a source. Instead of finding/showing a reliable source, they reliably take down this question. Is there a reliable source showing that the movie is Chinese? I looked in variety, hollywood reporter, BFI and AFI and couldn't find a mention of the film nationality. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:109C:B1B7:AEAD:D200 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Cheerio. 25/7/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:7941:59B9:ECA4:43B1 (talk) [reply]
If you paste the following link into a skype conversation, the other skype user sees a porn picture as the link picture. However the link is fine on the side of the conversation where it is pasted. Can this be corrected. No idea where the picture is coming from and it is definitely not me.
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 12:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vokaya necklace Uhura wears
Should the article mention the fact that the vokaya necklace Spock gave to Uhura is the mysterious object that Pegg&Jung asked the guys over memory alpha to name? Info: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/VokayaMathe76 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hovering over the link for List of Films Featuring Extraterrestrials, provides a preview of a "Note" rather than the article. SquashEngineer (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
italicization
Why is "Yorktown" italicized? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - 
