text:
Talk:Star Trek: New Voyages

Continuity Error?
Okay... I've seen all the episodes on STNV so far... and I haven't really kept up with the site for a year now... but does anyone know why at the end of "To Serve All My Days" (SPOILER WARNING) Chekov dies but in the start of the next episode he is alive and well? Did I miss something? - Vezz801 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.247.72 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I was wondering that myself. There was no explanation whatsoever. I had came here looking for some explanation from the writers, but there isn't a word about it. 66.245.126.238 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Logic dictates that they had to un-kill him due to the unfortunate fact that he was alive and well after the fourth year of the Enterprise's voyage. I, personally, would like to know why they killed him in this series in the first place if he was still alive afterward anyway? Perhaps he didn't actually die; maybe he just hyper-aged, passed out after having a vivid hallucination from drinking too much vodka, and, barely living, was hypo'd by Bones and managed to have his age regressed — but unfortunately not the hangover. :D Kizul Emeraldfire (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Logic aside, we never established he died. If you want a specific answer, you may wish to check out To Serve All My Days - A Night in 1969

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain Future?
WTF is this about "Uncertain Future"? There is no source...nothing. Some moron must have posted this because he thinks its funny. I vote to delete that part. What do others think? FreddyE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.201.224.13 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was searching to find a reference to it before I removed it. If the original editor provides a link to a press release, it should go back up. (Alternatively, it could get reported by any reputable source. I just can't find one-- including major Trek news sites and the New Voyages page and forums.) JRP 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

 * Actually your Annonymous Contributor was correct - NV did indeed get at C&D! The reason he didn't push the point here was probably because Cow Creek Films was able to successfully negotiate a deal with Paramount and he doesn't want people to know that fan films really do have a tenuous but verifiable set of rules from on high! Checkout Jack Marshalls posts on the Trek BBS Be aware that they have a tendancy to wipe old threads (I've made a copy for posterity)--Kirok 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Sixty Six

High Bar?
I agree that we need to have a very high bar before we should allow fan-produced material to be in Wikipedia, but I believe that "New Voyages" meets that criteria-- not because of any qualitative percepton of quality, but because it has the backing of many Trek vets. JRP
 * I have to disagree.. I don't believe "New Voyages" meets this criteria, despite their lofty goals they barely produce on their promises. They have done little for the trek community except shine false hope for a new episode of TOS once a year by a cast who can't act worth beans, let alone hold a candle to their original counterparts. -NG
 * Maybe, but you can't deny it has cultural significance within the fan community, even if it is undeserved. -- Captain Proton 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a hype factory; it can't not have cultural significance. But as a trekkie I'm ashamed of it. -NG
 * Regardless of the above discussion, it should not be included in the Star Trek series category. Only actual (and in the case of Phase II, almost) Star Trek programs should be in that category.
 * He who is without laziness cast the first stone. The people behind STNV have done what precious few fans have attempted. Unlike the Star Wars vernacular (and Yoda be damned), in the Star Trek universe there IS try. If one didn't try, one would never succeed. These guys are trying. They deserve recognition. This page is fine where it is. If only more fans of Roddenberry's unique original vision would support efforts such as these instead of trying to criticize them and tear them down. ZachsMind 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Occam's Sledgehammer" in this case is the fact that Cawley and Marshall have approval and some "clandestine" support from Paramount, and above that have the blessing, approval and even assistance from both Eugene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett Roddenberry. The episodes so far have been significantly superior in quality than most of the fan-produced productions currently available, and manage to capture a good deal of the "look and feel" of the Original Series.
 * However, with the critical aspects out of the way, the reason it should continue to be included has jack frack to do with whether or not New Voyages is good or bad. Wikipedia is about information, not about rendering judgments on quality. If it were, Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Carter and Brussel Sprouts would not have entries. Wikipedia is not about "out of sight, out of mind". That way lies Newspeak, which is doubleplusbad. Sixty Six 10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to seal off this debate, New Voyages has been featured in Wired, the New York Times ("'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video" - 6-18-06), the official Star Trek site and their official magazine (I don't know the issue, sorry), CNet , G4's Attack of the Show , and others I'm missing.  Notability is well established now. Rob T Firefly 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Paramount approval?
Hello, PLEASE supply a Paramount studios press release link to support this comment, "According to an interview with Walter Koenig, Paramount Studios has given approval for the series," otherwise this is just hearsay or rumor. It must be available, if true! [user: just checking] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.138.140.215 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * PLEASE supply a link or facts to support this vague comment,
 * "Paramount Pictures, which owns the legal rights to the Star Trek franchise, has traditionally allowed the distribution of fan-created material as long as no attempt is made to profit from it without official authorization, and New Voyages enjoys the same toleration." Otherwise this is just hearsay or rumor. It must be available, if true! [user: just checking] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.169.127.118 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First off, please actually sign your comnments. It makes it hard to tell who is writing what.
 * Second, this information comes from the Walter Koenig article which is in the "External links" section - Koenig said that Paramount Studios is on board, allowing the production to take place as long as it is distributed for free on the Internet. He expects it to be available in January.
 * Not as good as a direct quote from Paramount, but secondary information from a reliable source. JRP
 * 'Secondary information' from a press release? I don't know. Recently, the New Voyages folks contact union guest stars; Walter Koenig, George Takei, Grace Lee Whitney, and others. The actor's unions have SAG Rule #1and AFTRA Rule one that does not allow union performers to work on non-union projects. (If they do, they can get into trouble by being fined and disciplined by the unions.) Does this mean that New Voyages video becomes a union show to have these union performers? How is this done? Love top hear from a NV reps on this. Netwriter 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be wrong but I highly doubt the union prevents their performers from playing unpaid roles in non-commercial projects... Nil Einne 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, not just are you correct, but online ventures are governed by a whole different set of rules. In addition, we are a SAG Signatory.

 * As for citations for the statement in the article, you (unsigned, at top) will doubtfully get any - I for one know that I will not be releasing such and neither will Paramount, CBS or Viacom. Of course, with a C&D (in our ancient history) having been issued and dropped - and us being contacted for content for one of the features on the ST:TMP BluRay release (check the costuming section, which our portion of was shot on our bridge with our costumes), anyone with a little bit of deductive reasoning will conclude that, at the least, some sort of agreement was made with us.

 * RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Episodes List
The article had a link to a non-existant page for a list of episodes. I deleted the link and instead created a list in this article. Hawaiian717 07:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hyphen
Just rv'd an edit by Bkell. He added a hypen to "five year mission". As the picture cover clearly has five year without a hyphen, I believe that the correct grammar is "five year" as apposed to "five-year". I may well be wrong so feel free to change it back if you know that "five-year" is correct. Ed 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since "five-year" is a phrase being used as an adjective immediately before the noun it modifies, it should have a hyphen, despite the hyphenless cover. I'm putting the hyphen back in. —Bkell 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and "To boldly go" is a split infinitive. Since when is Star Trek about grammar? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kelly or Kelley?
Could we have a definitive answer on how to spell the name of the gentleman who plays the part of Dr, McCoy? On the Cast list on the website his name is John Kelly, however on IMDB and elsewhere he is credited as John M. Kelley. --Kirok of L'Stok 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NV's not canon
This is actually not about this article, but other articles. I've just been to the james T. Kirk article and NV was mentioned right in right in the first paragraph. I saw similar NV mentions in other Trek related articles. I don't think NV is quite popular enough to be mentioned alongside actual canon Trek, but we can mention NV in the trivia section, or perhaps in the filmograhpy of Trek Veterans who had a part in it. -- Captain Proton 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * NV is quite awful - what Ive seen of it - the acting is worse than many highschool plays. Its should be shot out of a huge CANNON into outer space rather than even being considered as canon.  At best it is some kind of mutant offshoot that is best forgotten.  It should be limited to a trivia note.  Walter Koenigs involvement ranks with his decision to accept the hiddeous role in STARLOST as the Alien Oro.  As far as Takei goes, well....  his recent revelations indicate he just isnt right in the head. Anonymous - 1:13, 4 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Obi Wan Kenobi tells Luke Skywalker that you can use "The Force" to change peoples' minds -especially weak-minded folk. Now, repeat after me: New Voyages is Canon... ... ...New Voyages is Canon... :-) GordonWatts  17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Up for Deletion???
Why? The notice box was added, This seems to be a legit article explaining what Star Trek: New Voyages is. Perhaps it needs an additional parenthetical addition (Fan Fiction?) I am sure that the description could be amended to denote Non Canon and so forth. I found this article through google search Wikipedia Star Trek New Voyages. It answered my question. 198.203.175.175 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of zealouts (sic) out there who're taking the view towards NV as the infamous James Dixon took towards the FASA TOS RPG, going out of their way to sabotage any positive support for it for their own reasons. This sort of pettiness should be left out of any Wikipedia decisions, and arguably should be grounds for disqualifying any calls for deletion. From a historical and informational aspect, the NV article in no way violates any Wikipedia rules. It's not a promotional fluff piece, but simply a statement of its existence, a brief historical overview with essential facts, an episode guide and some additional notes and trivia. I wouldn't worry about its being removed any time soon. Sixty Six 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

June 18 New York Times article
This project, along with other Trek fan film efforts are discussed in a new article in The New York Times: "'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video"

This would be an appropriate article source to use for citation, in light of the recent concerns over notability/significance.-- LeflymanTalk 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New NV Episode Released
"To Serve All My Days" is now officially released and available for download. I've solidified the release date in the main article accordingly. Sixty Six 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Windom mislinks
The link attached to will Windoms name links to a 1800s politician,not the actor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Nichelle Nichols interview
I removed the following sentence from the article because it looks like it will not have any reliable source:
 * Additionally, Nichelle Nichols said in an interview that she was talking with producers about appearing in an episode "next year", presumably meaning 2007.

The bare link itself requires registration at TVLand.com (which I believe is against WP policy for reliable sources), but even after I registered, I couldn't retrieve any info from it (it kept timing out). I also could not find any reference to it using Google or the Internet Archive. Even if it worked, it appears to be a fan-chat forum, not typically considered a reliable source. Just in case someone else can resolve these problems, here's a partially completed citation that can be edited and pasted into place in the article: — Jeff Q (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff- First Voyages?
I heard there was to be a spin off of New Voyages called First Voyages. Is this true? That said… yes, it does seem to be true. “…the New Voyages spin-off series "Star Trek: First Voyages"…” “…Star Trek: New Voyages and its spinoff, Star Trek: First Voyages…” etc.… use Google. —Frungi 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote the top of this very page: “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: New Voyages article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.”

Episode numbers
The NV site is down, but the torrent site lists “Come What May” as the pilot, episode 0, and the numbering starts with “In Harm’s Way” as episode 1. This article lists the pilot as episode 1, “In Harm’s Way” as episode 2, etc. Is there a reason? —Frungi 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed(?) by an anonymous user. —Frungi 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Images in this article
This article has pretty consistently been a mess of non-free images uploaded under false fair-use rationales (headshots and screengrabs tagged as "posters," etc.) These are most certainly non-encyclopedic and the "fair use" is not justifiable for the vast majority. Is there anyone working on this article with conections to the "New Voyages" producers? If so, the solution is simple: get the NV folks to release one or more "publicity shot" images under the GFDL, Creative Commons, or other applicable free license. Perhaps a Wikipedian who uses their forum or something can approach them with the idea. At any rate, this constant cycle of deleting images only to have them re-uploaded and deleted again is tedious, and not at all appropriate. Rob T Firefly 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I know this is an old post, but to clarify for future events and issues regarding permissible or fair use, people are always free to contact me via my page here, or the contact link on our site, as I am one of the small handful of people responsible for controlling the use of our material. And Rob, thanks for your concern on our behalf.

 * Robert Mauro
 * Producer/Webmaster/Network Admin/Gaffer
 * Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2
 * RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response!
 * When I wrote that, there were many non-free images being uploaded to illustrate every episode, character, and such, in conflict with Non-free content. The images would get deleted, the article would end up with a bunch of broken images, someone would upload the images again, and so on in a messy cycle.  It's in a much better state now; one poster and one cast shot fall within the guidelines.
 * I wonder if as a staff member, you might be willing to raise the possibility with the rest of the staff of releasing one or more images from your production under a free license compatible with Wikipedia, which would completely remove all non-free and fair use concerns. However, it'd definitely be something to go over with whoever handles legal affairs for your production first; I'm not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the specifics of your agreement with CBS/Paramount or how it would affect your production's ability to relicense images which still contain their copyrighted designs, logos, etc.  If possible, though, I think it would be a very neat idea. Rob T Firefly (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewVoyagesCast.jpg
Image:NewVoyagesCast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That huge production notes paragraph
''Unlike the official Star Trek series prior to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the CGI-rendered ships are able to move in all dimensions rather than just the horizontal plane. This has been the subject of some controversy. ... ... ... and so on and so forth da-da-de-da''

Apart from being unsourced and long-winded, this is also nonsense. Since when is there a "horizontal plane" in space? 86.136.8.212 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They could have meant horizontal with respect to the tv screen. Dr.K. (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"New Voyages" or "Phase II"?
Should this article really have been renamed to "Star Trek: Phase II"?

The creators of ST:NV certainly can change their name, so that all future episodes produced by them bear the name ST:P2. But can they -- can anyone -- retroactively change the name of a released product?

In other words, this page currently states that in 2004, an episode of Star Trek: Phase II was released. But that is a lie. No such product was released in 2004. It's equivalent to saying that in 1977, George Lucas released a movie entitled "Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope" (another false statement that I see a lot). Retcons are allowed in fiction, but not in real life.

Additional problems:

 * In the body of this page, the terms New Voyages, Phase II, and Phase 2 are all used, pretty much interchangeably.

 * The Star Trek: New Voyages page has been retitled Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), but the List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes page has not changed.

 * Regardless of what the page is entitled, shouldn't there be a paragraph in this article explaining when this name change took place, and perhaps (if known) why it took place?

I'm fine with any reasonable solution. (Two separate pages, one for ST:NV and one for ST:P2, each covering the time during which this show had that name, is probably not a reasonable solution.) — Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * According to the website, the full official name is Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II. Using the full title should remedy the situation. — trlkly 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * After you moved it, User:TheRealFennShysa moved it back.

 * My original question still persists, though. I am not convinced that the current name of the show is what's important.  Suppose that next season, the Simpsons changes its name to "Homer's Family".  Does it automatically follow that the previous seasons, which were released and marketed under the name "The Simpsons", should now be documented on Wikipedia under the new name?  I don't think that makes sense.

 * On the other hand, maybe this really is Wikipedia policy. A television show from the 1960s starring William Shatner, called "Star Trek", is documented on Wikipedia in the article entitled Star Trek: The Original Series... even though you will search in vain through old TV Guides from 1967 for a show by that name.   Similarly, Wikipedia has an article about Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, claiming that this was a 1977 movie, even though I was around in 1977 and can testify that even though I saw a movie named "Star Wars" half a dozen times that year, the subtitle "A New Hope" was completely unknown until many years later.

 * Meanwhile, the page List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes uses the old name.

 * Would you agree with this? From 2004 to 2007, a show named Star Trek: New Voyages existed.  From 2008 to the present, another show made by the same people named Star Trek: Phase II existed.  Would you agree?  — Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The correct name (when we (the STP2 Design/Web Team) all catch up from our latest shoot and have time to change it, our website will reflect it as well) is "Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II" though we have somewhat interchangeably used "Star Trek Phase II" or "Star Trek Phase 2" (as that is the domain name we managed to register) as well.

 * And yes, the old name would apply to all pre Blood and Fire episodes - while the new one was to reference some subtle (and perhaps not so) changes we are making as we move through the Phase II (aborted series) era ending right before TMP's events.

 * RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

creator(s)
if the intro says "The series was created by James Cawley and Jack Marshall in April 2003.", why should the infobox say it was created by mr. roddenberry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.161.150 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Our series was created by James Cawley, and then (until Marshall's departure) produced by Cawley and Marshall; and ST:TOS, which we are trying to be the continuation of, was created by Gene Roddenberry, as homaged to in the credits where our logo reverts to simply the "Star Trek" logo followed by the customary TOS "Created by Gene Roddenberry".

 * RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding my identity
Hello all,

I've recently commented on a couple of things here in the Talk section. To ensure that no one presumes a hidden conflict of interest (though this information is on my User Page pretty prominently), I figured I should post this here:

I am Robert Mauro

Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

* On the STP2 Forums, I am RobertMfromLI * I am contactable via the "Contact Us" link on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2 page or via PM

I am well aware of the terms of the COI, and intend not to violate them, hence also my openness about my identity and role in the production. I am available for any questions regarding content in the STP2 Wiki page and of course will attempt to obtain citable references for any answers I provide or advise if that is not possible (what you do with such, is of course up to you).

Thanks to you all for maintaining this - and thank you to whomever fixed the episodes listing for us (for some reason, the last two episodes were being thrown at the bottom of the page after the links - thanks for fixing it).

Best, RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor Factual Changes by me today
I have made some minor factual changes in the cast section as follows:

Brandon Stacy
 * Fixed misspelling of Brandon Stacy (was misspelled as Stacey)

 * Changed ep appearance for Brandon from 6 to 6-8 as seen in still pics from actual footage for those episodes

Jonathan Zungre
 * Changed Zungre's ep appearances from 6-9 to 6-8 as casting and script details for ep 9 have not been released yet
 * As with Brandon, still images from actual episode footage confirm this.

Robert Mauro

Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Similar to my above change, I have updated Root and Stinger to episodes #-8 to reflect the information already released and in video already released.

 * Best,

 * Robert Mauro

 * Line Producer (and Webmaster, Forum Admin, Authorized Copyright Agent, Network Admin & Gaffer, etc, etc) for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2

 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Website
Is the New Voyages/Phase II website down currently? BratmanGodzilla (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (I know this is an old post, but I am answering it before someone removes the links without checking to see if the server is up)
 * Yes, yes it was. I was away at a STP2 shoot, and during a massive storm (300 miles away where the office is located) power went out for 7 hours. When power was restored, WHILE the servers were doing database checks (and BEFORE the UPS units had recharged) power went out again for a few more hours. That left the databases in an unrecoverable state (MySQL had created the temp files for the database checks, and deleted the originals, leaving nothing to check until the temp/backup files were restored). A backup generator was ordered shortly after that incident, ;-)
 * Best,
 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess you guys are still waiting for that backup generator. --69.180.37.163 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The website appears to be permanently down. Is this a result of legal action on the part of CBS? If so, some major changes need to be made to this article. LyleHoward (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's only temporary - they posted about the downtime on Facebook. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New Voyages
Does anyone know if the title "New Voyages" is a reference to the first published work of Star Trek fan fiction, Star Trek: New Voyages, edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreth? It seems kind of coincidental that a collection of fan-created television episodes should have the same name as the fan-created short story collection.

And regardless of whether or not this is true, should The New Voyages the collection have its own page? I found this site while searching for the other. The New Voyages is kind of a watershed moment in television and film fandom. I believe it was the first ever fan fiction to be professionally published. It spawned the entire collection of Star Trek published novels, not to mention novels that were spawned by dozens of other shows and movies, including Star Wars, The X-Files, Murder She Wrote, Monk, Roswell, Serenity, Psych, Buffy, Nightmare on Elm Street, and so forth. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Major new cast change - James Cawley steps down
The Star Trek New Voyages website still references James Cawley as portraying Captain Kirk. http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/?page_id=141

But on his own Facebook page, James Cawley himself offers a link to what appears to be a new episode of Star Trek New Voyages - starring someone else.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4398950181820&set=pb.1530489018.-2207520000.1364166788&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F775700_4398950181820_8373133_o.jpg

"Join The Crew of The Enterprise as Star Trek: Phase II boldly RE-LAUNCHES it's series with Veteran actor Brian Gross taking over the center seat as Captain James T. Kirk! along with Brandon Stacy as Mr. Spock and John Kelly as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy!"

I just found this announcement on their official forum: tar Trek: Phase II Announces First Detail of Planned “ReLaunch” This Summer.

Senior Executive Producer James Cawley is thrilled to announce today that Brian Gross will be taking on the role of Captain James T. Kirk for Star Trek: Phase II. Starting with the twelfth episode, “Bread and Savagery”, currently filming in upstate New York, Gross will star as the iconic and most beloved captain in all of space as the award winning series continues to film and release new episodes, comprising the fourth and fifth season of Star Trek: The Original Series.

A talented and very experienced young actor, Gross has been in a number of feature films, including Red Tails, Knifepoint, and Big Mama’s House 2; and has a dizzying long list of guest starring and recurring roles on network TV shows including NCIS: Los Angeles, CSI: New York, Psych, NCIS, Las Vegas, Bones, Joey, JAG, Saving Grace, and Cold Case.

With Cawley’s career as the #1 Elvis impersonator in the United States swinging into full gear, he made the difficult decision that a re-cast was necessary to continue production of Star Trek: Phase II episodes. “I love performing,” said Cawley, “and at this point doing the work that pays the bills on this amazing adventure obviously prevents me from acting as the lead in this hobby.” With a change imminent on the horizon, the Senior Executive Producer decided it was the perfect opportunity to “ramp up” the production several notches. “Bringing in a solid, professional actor to play James Kirk will challenge us all to move things to the next level – and beyond,” he said.

The boundlessly energetic Cawley will remain Senior Executive Producer of the series, as well as continuing to perform the myriad of tasks he’s known for: set construction, props, costumer, costume designer, special effects makeup artist – to name a few.

The addition of Brian Gross as the new star of Star Trek: Phase II is only one of several planned changes to “re-launch” the series this year, which will be revealed over the course of the next several months. Fans can expect previously filmed episodes - including “Kitumba”, “The Protracted Man”, and “Mind-Sifter” – to be released when finished, while Brian will portray Kirk forward on the series that has already won numerous awards, including The TV Guide Award for Best Webisodes (beating out “Battlestar Gallactica”), two Golden Icon Awards (Best Web Series and Best Lead Actor on a Webseries), as well as both a Hugo and Nebula nomination.

http://s1002.photobucket.com/albums/af141/andriech22/?action=view&current=Kirk.jpg

http://forums.startreknewvoyages.com/index.php?topic=13161.0

RK (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The name, again
It looks like the name of this series has reverted to "New Voyages"?

http://www.startrekphase2.com/ redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/ (which we link to as the official website in the Infobox).

http://www.startrekphase2.de/ (listed as "Official website" in External Links) redirects to http://www.startreknewvoyages.de/

And on the episodes list page at the .com site, after adopting a "Phase II" logo for Episodes 4 through 8, the cover art for Episode 9 returns to the older "New Voyages" logo.

Ultimately, it really isn't that big a deal which name Wikipedia uses, since a redirect from the other name can always ensure that people end up in the right place. But the "List of..." article and this one are still in conflict as to the name. While I was thinking of finally renaming List of Star Trek: New Voyages episodes, now it seems that it might make more sense to rename (back) this article instead! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it has changed back according to http://www.startreknewvoyages.de/en/news-newvoyages.php 220.240.122.85 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Names here have been cleaned up. Someone else had moved the article to Star Trek: New Voyages, so over the weekend I requested an administrative move of this Talk page to match. User:Sphilbrick was nice enough to complete that request, and here we are. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Revised to address some not very encyclopedic writing
The article—as with many related to fannish concerns—suffered from some clumsy writing, poor organization, and a rather un-encyclopedic tone throughout. For instance, the initial description of the show included trivial information such in which buildings it was filmed.

I've done some reorganizing and rewriting to improve it and to make it more encyclopedic.

.MrNeutronSF (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Other support section is a mess & Production Notes reads like trivia
Both need work.MrNeutronSF (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cawley's sets in Ticonderoga, NY
This is apparently now a tourist attraction authorized by CBS. http://www.treknews.net/2016/07/14/star-trek-tos-bridge-set-tour/ http://startrektour.com knoodelhed (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Star Trek: New Voyages


text: User talk:70.113.27.107

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:70.113.27.107


text:
Wikipedia talk:Pro and con lists

This page
does not appear to have gotten much attention from the community. I'm puting it back to the "proposals" category pending some discussion. If it finds general support, it can be promoted back to "guideline".

 * I can start that discussion by saying that I think bulleted lists are a perfectly fine way to summarize arguments that clearly do have two or more sides. Certainly compare-and-contrast prose is also perfectly common, and is more useful in situations where it's not clear where something belongs, or if it is complicated.  Lists avoid repetition of weasel words and other redundant phrases. -- Beland 03:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like a manual-of-style entry, than a guideline. I think it has some valid points though; suppose that an article has subdivisions (history, application, pricing) then I would expect historical issues to be found under history, and not under pro or con as appropriate. Radiant_* 07:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Radiant. I would also prefer us to present the argument as something to consider rather than opening with the assertion that Pro & con lists are harmful. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Is wikipedia the ultimate encyclopedia!?" - a page on that would be great.!

I wrote this draft guideline.
I'll admit it's a bit of a rant around the edges. The title "x considered harmful" is a traditional computer-science title form for essays against the use of a particular syntactic form or structure. The c2 Wiki page "Thread Mode Considered Harmful" (which is linked) was what I was directly referring to there.

The reason that I'm not sure it fits entirely under the style-guide rubric is that the problems I tried to address are not just stylistic ones, but social ones. I think pro & con lists harm the development of Wikipedia articles as much as they harm the style or readability of a specific version of an article. They show up in articles that have NPOV difficulties, and they then provide focal points for the worsening of those difficulties.

Indeed, part of what's harmful about pro & con lists is that they are (in a sense) too readable -- they oversimplify the subject. Not only does this mislead the reader, but it also makes it all too obvious where an editor with a particular POV should throw in their two cents. It's like a big pair of signs saying "Insert biased view X here" and "Insert biased view Y here".

So no, I really didn't mean simply to suggest alternatives to pro & con lists, but also to point out ways that the pro & con lists are, yes, harmful to the development of articles. --FOo 03:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thnak you for that explanation. I confess that I had neither made the mental link nor clicked the wiki link. As an extraordinarily small sample of our readership, I imagine that I will not be alone in my misreading of the intent here. If I, with my computer science background, missed the allusion then we can be fairly sure that many others will do the same. That aside, I think that we may agree vociferously.  I see the pro & con lists as a style consequence of a general issue regarding polarisation of arguments.  The policy might be "don't polarise arguments". P&C lists are a form of polarisation so the MoS would counsel against them. --Theo  (Talk) 08:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this can safely be moved from a proposal to a manual-of-style entry. If there was any significant opposition after being listed on RFC, I'm sure it would have been mentioned here. As long as this doesn't claim to be official policy or anything thereabouts, it's mainly common sense. Radiant_ >|< 12:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Concur.Theo (Talk) 13:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I most definitely oppose your misguided opinion on Pro-et-contra lists. While some proportion of pro-et-contra lists may be the result of unresolved factual disputes amongst editors, many are sane high quality easy to read descriptions of complex factual issues, and elevating you current text to anything more than a discussion page rant would be harmful.  In fact your introduction of a  tag has already turned into another one of those article-defaming tags that some people blindly run around and graffiti onto pages that have only a formal relationship to your reasons for not liking that style of presentation.
 * As a minimum, I would strongly suggest that the ProCon template be deleted or disabled until a means is found to prevent overly prolific "contributors" sprinkling it all over Wikipedia.Jbohmdk (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Having worked on a number of articles with "Pro-Con" lists,
I agree that they are generally the result of POV conflicts. However, they are, also, often the best deal you are going to get on a page. This is particuarly true when there is a core of non-reality based POV ("George Bush orchestrated 911", "Creationism" etc.) has a critical mass on a page. When two sides don't even agree that the other is a reasonable point of view to hold, conflating the two is often a major victory for the non-reality POV, since it implies the POV is at least taken seriously.

The present "Pro Con" proposal is, in itself, harmful. Instead Pro-Con lists should be taken as an article in certain phase of reaching consensus. Some articles will never move beyond it, because what is really going on is the assertion of talking points by various POVs. Instead, the proposal should be something along the line of an improvment tag or plate that says "This page has pro-con lists" and suggest ways of moving beyond them. Stirling Newberry 16:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is more like an essay than a styleguide
Colleagues, I'm concerned that the perspective pushed at the opening—that editors should avoid pro and con lists—morphs into a discussion of both the pros and the cons of pro and con lists. I see a prominent external link to a page without attribution or mention of publisher or author, and thus a highly questionable source. That link target appears to discuss the merits and disadvantages of thread-mode on talk pages, not in articles. What is it doing here?

I propose that this page be taken out of the MoS and made an essay, with links from another list-related MoS page. Tony  (talk)  02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm adding a small subsection at WP:LISTS (WP:LISTS that expresses in a more even-handed and useful way what I think this page is trying to convey. I will then change this page to an essay and add a link to it from the List styleguideline section. Tony   (talk)  08:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Content forking
Added a link to Content_forking, I'm not clear that this pro and con is such a evil, other than that Wikipedia articles typically aren't structured around advocacy of a certain position, hence there isn't a need to a take a 'pro' or 'con' position. Most of the ones I've looked at are 'pro and con' of the article topic vs. some other alternative within the same space, hence they can be rewritten as 'Comparison with x' sections.Cander0000 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections pro-and-con lists?
Here's an example of one that, in my opinion, seriously impedes the neutrality of the article. Although this page presents the pro-and-con list as an alternative to thread mode in prose, it seems more oriented towards actual lists, so this example seems to stake out a middle ground between a "criticism" section (with accompanying section for positive content) and a "pro-and-con list" (except as prose instead of a list). Should I tag it as POV, a criticism section, a pro-and-con list, something else, or create my own essay and template for these situations (which would probably borrow heavily from this one and leave it suitable for adding back into the MoS if it even survives)? Morgan Wick (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning here
I'm not a major wikipedia contributer, but I am an engineer and I seriously disagree with the anti pro-con list reasoning presented in this page.

Take for example the article on Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries. It is marked as containing a "pro-con list" which under these guidelines is evil. This "pro-con list" contains exactly a list of the tradeoffs that an engineer considering including this battery in his design would consider. It is presented succinctly and unambiguously whereas these guidelines seem to effectively say that the same content ought to be buried deep in the article, fluffed over or downright removed. In short this policy seems to want to remove the exact information I want to extract out of this article to make an informed decision.

Almost all (good) decisions people make are made by coming up with criteria, weighting them, and using them to judge the various options. This is widely taught as a good decision making in subject matters as diverse as Engineering, Public Policy and Economics.

In short, life is about tradeoffs, and listing the tradeoffs is a tool that helps Wikipedia's readers make informed decisions. It's not only downright stupid to deny them this, but it weakens Wikipedia's value as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.55.47 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with the above anon. If I make the statements
 * Cars are suitable on land more than on the water
 * Boats are suitable on the water more than on land
 * I am delineating characteristics of cars and boats. Nothing more nothing less. So somehow construe that into partisan bickering is just atrociously bad logic. And yes the procon template is being used to obfuscate perfectly neutral delineations on technical pages, such as Powder diffraction. Bad logic is harmful to Wikipedia

Jcwf (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I have encountered a similar abuse of the ProCon template on an article I care a bit about and where (long ago) I put in what I consider a clear and short NPOV section about the practical merits of something. In my case this was slapped onto the article without comment or reason, not even a non-blank edit summary, by someone who seem to be editing non-stop and often focusing on such practices. It is interesting that abuse of this template has hit us both (by apparently different editors) in the past 12 months, even though the article is 8 years old.  As I said above, the Procon template needs to be removed or blanked out, so it becomes clear to the vandals that this rant against pro/con lists is not a valid reason to blight articles with ugly warning banners. Jbohmdk (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I came here from Direct-Shift Gearbox, currently tagged with the Pro and con list template. I don't think there's anything wrong with that section's presentation. The argument against pro and con lists given here is definitely too broad. At the same time, I'd agree that these are not good for presenting matters of opinion, as well as controversial issues. I wish the template actually said that, so that it wouldn't be misused. GregorB (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I also do not see any point to this essay. If there are NPOV problems, there are NPOV problems whether there's a section formatted as a list or not. But it's hard to see how pro-and-con lists would ever have anything to do with POV. No one (or at least no reliable source) thinks nuts and bolts are faster to use than a nail gun; no one thinks nails hold better than screws; everyone has nails, bolts, and screws in their toolbox. So all the stuff about sides and controversies is irrelevant. There's no burning reason to include a section on the pros and cons of nails (and in fact the nail article doesn't have one), but then again there's no burning reason not to. Likewise with the pros and cons of pretty much anything. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better for this essay to focus on when pro and con lists are bad, and when they're potentially helpful. For instance, in engineering-based articles focused on an application or a possible approach, pro and con lists are generally a good idea, because most of the time, any option available to an engineer are going to have clearly-documented and relatively objective advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed against alternatives.  On the other hand, in political-science, economics, or sociology articles (which is, I suspect, what this essay was written for), pro and con lists are a bad idea because different commentators and schools of thought are going to legitimately disagree on what they are -- eg. a pro-and-con lists that says "pro: economists of this school think it helps (like this)" and "con: economists of that school think it hurts (like that)" is not really useful because the different approaches, philosophies, and credibility between different commentators means those two things are probably not comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's this sort of reply which gets to the heart of the problem here: a failure to understand the distinction between style and content problems. Engineers, as an editing group on Wikipedia, have next to no grasp of how to write compelling or interesting prose: they are practically incapable of even recognising it. This is why our technical articles largely consist of dry clumps of facts laid out in a semi-random order. It is entirely possible to present both the positive and negative aspects of a subject through the course of a general article, rather than hiving off all such material into dedicated sections, just like with criticism. As first I thought the problem might be that the essay simply doesn't make a compelling enough case, but having re-read the rationale section is does a perfectly good job of doing so. My hypothesis is therefore that like most of the rest of the Internet, the majority of those disagreeing above have passed comment on the essay without having bothered to read it first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also entirely possible to present the universally-accepted pros and cons of a technical approach (or a material, or another straightforward topic) in a pro-and-con list; stylistically-speaking, this is one of the oldest and most easily-legible ways of doing it. In the right article (if it is properly-framed by a deeper discussion, and not the entire article), it can be a good idea, allowing readers to grasp the broad significance of the topic at a glance.  The problem is that this essay (which, I'll note, is actually very poorly-written and badly-composed itself) doesn't recognize that.  Look at that ugly list of reasons -- oversimplify controversies, invite spurious correspondences between "sides", thus invite biased contributions, encourage forbidden primary research -- these are the concerns of people who have seen pro and con lists cause specific problems on specific sorts of articles; none of them suggest a general problem.  This essay admirably expresses the emotional distress that a few people have felt in those articles, but it is basically useless as a broader guideline for the wiki as a whole.  This is a problem of a few people determining a problem local to their article, and trying to apply it universally without considering the local context or layout of the affected articles. --Aquillion (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's the laziest and quickest way of doing it. Show me an article with a pro and con list that couldn't be reformulated to better present the subject: I suspect that either you can't, or the example you pick will indicate your blind spot. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Central problem with this proposition
While it is certainly a good idea to discuss a topic feature-oriented, having a condensed list of advantages and disadvantages often is necessary for a comprehensive presentation. So it is wrong to generally remove such sections. Tomdo08 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Unipolar, technological, analysis & modeling
I came here from Drip_irrigation, currently tagged with the Pro and con list template. This subheading is what I was hoping to find. It is a better summary, than a summary.

I was trained in naval nuclear power, steam plant, electrical generators & motors, batteries, etc. Not only are Advantages & Disadvantages lists vital to the educational process in, really, a huge number & array of technological fields, but this relational-algebra-like knowledge format is also the base of a flexible & powerful analysis & modeling toolkit.

Not only will technical practitioners in hundreds of fields be dismayed to see Advantages & Disadvantages lists deprecated, but Wikipedia itself would stand to both lose content-value, and a potentially vast range of new content-creation opportunities. As used widely in technology & Engineering, the educational role morphs into synthetic creation, based on analysis & modeling, constrained & informed by the Pro-Con list.

The intellectual cornerstone of the Patent, and the innovation process itself, relies explicitly on inventories of Pro & Con features, of the new instance, compared with former instances. These are usually bipolar assessments, but unipolar pros & cons are the core of the paradigm. Mulipolar lists can be created, but they rapidly generate unwanted complexity, which the unipolar list tames so well.

Everything has advantages & disadvantages ... pluses & minuses, strengths & weaknesses, assets & liabilities. Often, in the context of "things", these are the most important & crucial data, facts & relationships; the most interesting & valuable knowledge.

For sure, Wikipedia must address the misuse of articles to conduct interpersonal & intergroup conflicts, based on subjective valuations & biases. But to also eliminate technical, factual Advantages & Disadvantages lists at the same time, would be an egregious case of the baby in the bathwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Clayton (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I updated the template.
Based on the discussion here, there don't seem to be any consensus for general removal of pro-and-con lists, so I think it's worth updating the pro-con template to include a suggestion that people simply remove the template in articles where they think such a list is appropriate. The template is here, for convenience:. At some point someone may want to consider a general removal of the template from many of the articles in, since it seems to have been generally applied blindly and tends to just clutter up those articles due to a lack of any real consensus on the matter. (As I noted above, the essay seems to have been written as an argument against the use of the lists in primarily politically-oriented articles; but the lists themselves overwhelmingly appear on engineering-oriented articles, where they're much less controversial and seem generally accepted.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 * No, the problem is that this style of writing is terrible, and leads to crappy and amateurish prose. That it's present in technical articles is because the majority of our contributors to technical articles are lousy writers who need to have their work completely rewritten by people who actually have a degree of command of the language. The last community-wide discuission of the matter was at the template's TfD, where the only dissent was on whether this warranted its own tag: there was no suggestion that the style itself was appropriate. I've undone the addition of wording which allows the sort of editor that writes in this manner to unilaterally remove tags that allow others to fix it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely disagree; I feel that pro and con lists can be useful ways of providing straightforward facts in certain articles, especially highly-technical ones. The TfD likewise (while it got almost no response) contains at least two people indicating that they feel that TfDs can sometimes be effective -- and certainly, in any case, one TfD is not enough cause to blanket hundreds of articles with an official-looking template demanding that they conform to the opinions expressed in a random essay!  I also noted that you removed the neutrality tag at the same time as you reverted the template (and posted here); as it says, those are supposed to be removed when the dispute is resolved, which it clearly wasn't if you just made a major revert and responded to disagreement on the talk page -- certainly discussion on this essay has stalled (showing, I think, a broad lack of support for it), but you should at least make an attempt to gauge the waters and make sure people's issues have been resolved before removing a template like that.  Just glancing up this talk page itself shows that numerous people coming from articles that have been tagged with this template don't feel the opinions it suggests are useful there, and it's important that they understand that it's neither policy nor something that enjoys any sort of consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 * A dispute is a formal process: dispute tags are not supposed to simply be slapped on any essay that Q. Random Wikipedian disagrees with and left there until Q is personally satisfied. People have been kvetching about this essay for nearly ten years, but it's still here and people still refer to it; it plainly isn't generally so controversial as to state that it's not fit for purpose. As per my other commends, your "technical articles need this" assertion is flat-out wrong and a big part of the problem that this template seeks to resolve. I haven't yet seen you engage with this rebuttal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pros-and-cons don't always conflict with NPOV
Whilst agreeing with the basic premise that lists of opposing points of view don't make an article NPOV, I'm mystified by its appearance in a number of articles (box girder bridge? ducted fan?) which aren't exactly bitter battlegrounds between feuding authors.

In particular, pros-and-cons lists are a helpful tool for evaluating the suitability of a particular technology in a given set of circumstances. The engineer building a bridge may hold personal convictions about, say, Obamacare or the fur trade, but is unlikely to have deep prejudices favouring I-beams over a box girder. He or she will look at the project requirements and choose a structure whose pros and cons best meet their objective constraints.

Presenting a summary of the vices and virtues of the shape of a bar of metal isn't, in any way, taking a stance that compromises Wikipedia's impartiality on the major debates of the 21st century.

Secondly, when used in technical articles, a point-by-point list or comparison table may be more suitable for its intended audience. Take a page like SAE_steel_grades: it's a list of terse bullet points - "heat-resistant; poor corrosion resistance" - with no pretensions of English style. Rewriting it in flowing prose would only decrease the signal-to-noise ratio, making the page harder for its likely readers to use.

IanHarvey (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A practical criterion?
Having just come across an example of the pro and con list template, I had a look at the arguments. There seems to be some (not unanimous) consensus that lists are appropriate to many engineering-type articles, but not to social and political articles where pros and cons are less clearly defined and uncontroversial. A purpose of Wikipedia that I consider paramount (though I haven't seen a guideline) is where relevant, Wikipedia should be useful (without becoming an instruction manual, travel guide, etc.) If I'm looking to buy a computer printer I would very much want to see something like
 * Advantages of laser over inkjet printers
 * Permanent ink
 * Cheap to run
 * Disadvantages of laser over inkjet printers
 * Ink may fade or run if wet
 * Expensive to buy
 * Big
 * Photo-quality inkjets are likely to have better colour [a mildly controversial point that would need to be explained in text]

This summarises important information without the need to read swathes of text looking for salient nuggets. So I'd suggest that when judging whether this template is appropriate, a couple of criteria to include p&c lists are useful:
 * Is a pro and con list likely to be factually useful to a reader, rather than simply listing opposing opinions?
 * Does the list concisely summarise brief specific and uncontroversial points?

I'm going to be WP:bold and edit the essay accordingly; feel free to RD.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Some examples please
I've looked through a few of the articles in, looking specifically for examples of undesirable lists. The category has an overwhelming majority of technical and factual articles (where the discussion here clearly supports the use of lists); and I was unable to find a single example of an undesirable list. In this discussion the only article explicitly mentioned are technical ones considered to have been tagged unjustifiably. (In the process I untagged a handful of articles.)

Could I get away from all the abstract waffle and hot air and ask for some actual examples of articles that clearly should be tagged as having undesirable pro and con lists (whether currently tagged or not)? Please link to the specific revision, not the (ever-changing) article page. That will help to define the topic. If no, or vanishingly few, examples can be found, then this essay and the related template are manifestly undesirable.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've checked through a lot of the articles in, and still haven't found an unambiguously inappropriate list. I've removed the template from a lot of articles, and (so far, a week after starting) nobody has objected or reinstated it. Pol098 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Here is an example, technical rather than political, where a pro & con list is perhaps inappropriate, favouring a commercial product. The list is tagged as procon and also as WP:Peacock, which I think makes the procon tag unnecessary (though not inappropriate). An (unreferenced) entry from the list: Strong and supportive user community (especially Oracle APEX forum). [Added later] Actually the pro and con con list format is perfectly appropriate in this context, but the actual content, the entries, are too advert-like or POV. Pol098 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Pro and con lists


text:
Marvel Smith

Marvel Amos Smith (born August 6, 1978) is an American former professional football player who was an offensive tackle for nine seasons in the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the Arizona State Sun Devils. He was selected by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the second round of the 2000 NFL draft, and also was a member of the San Francisco 49ers. A one-time Pro Bowl selection, Smith earned two Super Bowl rings with the Steelers.

Early life
Smith attended Skyline High School in Oakland, California, and was a top student and a letterman in football. In football, he was a two-time All-City selection.

College career
Smith attended Arizona State University, where he was an All-American first-team selection in 1999, having only allowed one sack all season. He earned a bachelor's degree in interdisciplinary studies.

Pittsburgh Steelers
Smith was selected by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the second round (38th overall) in the 2000 NFL draft. He was selected to represent the AFC in the 2005 Pro Bowl for the first time after winning Super Bowl XL. Smith was considered by many to be one of the most important players on the Steelers' offensive line. Unfortunately, back injuries hampered him at the end of 2007 and limited him to a handful of games in 2008. The Steelers chose not to re-sign him after his 2003, 6-year, $26 million contract lapsed in the 2009 offseason.

San Francisco 49ers
An unrestricted free agent after the 2008 season, Smith agreed to terms with the San Francisco 49ers on March 27, 2009. The deal contained a maximum value of $10.5 million. Smith announced his retirement on August 28.

title: Marvel Smith


text:
Talk:Augustin Barruel

Untitled
I started to merge the two pages myself, but noticed that the birth/death dates contradicted each other and decided to leave it to someone who knew the subject. Dan 03:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Augustin Barruel


text:
User talk:Rakkar/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my talk page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.  Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log.
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language.

Happy editing! → Jarlaxle Artemis   03:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)  --  Did you know this guy has been banned indefinitely from all wikimedia sites? bloody n'famous

Masthead Island
Hi rakkar, no worries, thanks for doing the hard work with researching and starting the page. I merely had to review it and correct some factual inaccuracies. No probs with any of your additions except about mining on the island. The EPA National Park link at the end of the article mentions that Masthead Island is relatively undisturbed and human impacts on the island have been rare. I couldn't find any mention of guano mining on Masthead on the net, but know that such mining did occur on nearby Lady Musgrave Island and North West Island. If you have a reference supporting that guano mining occurred on Masthead, please by all means add it to the links list, otherwise I think the mining stuff should be removed from the article.

Cheers! BrightLights 09:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oils Alive Again by rakka of oz.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Oils Alive Again by rakka of oz.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem... the new tag looks good to me. --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 08:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Adwellchurch.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Adwellchurch.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dirt Music
A long time ago (in the wiki world) you made a comment about the novel Dirt Music being from the year 2001 and not 2002, you were of course right. Just so you know, I've update the article a bit, but it still needs work to de-stub it - if you feel like taking a shot at the Literary significance & criticism section that would be awesome. As for me, I haven't read the book yet but am a big fan of the soundtrack. --Cody.Pope 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Little context in JEFF MAWKES
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on JEFF MAWKES, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because JEFF MAWKES is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting JEFF MAWKES, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:SocialServicesUserboxIcon.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:SS.JPG. The copy called Image:SS.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Heading for article
Just a brief note of thanks for your courtesy in contacting me regarding your suggestion for the change in title for the Greens article. It is a pity that there is not more of this courtesy generally within the editing process (I note that someone else subsequently changed the heading without waiting for any further discussion). Anyways, thanks again, I appreciate your courtesy. JDAKINS (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC) User:JDAKINS

 * Hi Rakkar, this stuff belongs (if anywhere) in the "critique" section of the Green Politics page. It certainly doesn't fit into the "influence" section here. I may be somewhat biased here, but I think the reportage of the issue gives it undue weight. I have no doubt that JDAKINS and the article's author (if they are different people) think that it's a defining issue, but you'd have to say that there hasn't been a lot of other mention of this "problem" elsewhere. And there are no balancing opinions to reference, though you did a good job in your revision of the original insertion.

 * The reliability of the referenced source is also called into question by it's unsupported claim that the "insult" to US President George W Bush by Greens Senators was the main factor in the continued detention of Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay. Surely just a little far fetched and perhaps a sign of an obsessive position re Greens by the author. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rakkar/Archive 1


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Pikmin/archive1

Pikmin
I have been a long time Wikipedia user, but this is my first time trying to create a featured article. I know that I need to gather references, but Peer Review cures format, grammar, spelling, etc. errors. I thought it would be a good idea to leave this on peer review while I gather some referneces and further information, and also while my pictures are developing... Feel free to move information, recategorize, merge, divide, whatever to my sections. I am not particularly attached to the section organization of this article, I should be okay with whatever as long as you don't delete vast stretches of it while I'm not looking!

Things I do plan to add within 5 days:
 * references
 * precedents
 * reception
 * color photos

With any luck, by the time Peer Review is done, the information I am seeking will be in place, and style will be cleaned up enough for this to become a Featured Article. And before anyone asks, yes, I do plan to make Pikmin 2 a featured article some day. RyanGerbil10 03:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * First thing, all those ===h3=== headings make the table of contents way too long, if you really need those headings try using * in place of h3s--nixie 04:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed that for Ryan. -- user:zanimum

 * Wasn't there a Challenge Mode in Pikmin? I guess we should add a little something on that. I never played Challenge Mode in that, but I think I remember that you needed all three Pikmin types in Story Mode to play it. Anyways, that seemed to be missing from the article, and it was a fairly important aspect of the game. I think.--Xoo 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pikmin/archive1


text:
Manarola

Manarola (Manaea in the local dialect) is a small town, a frazione of the comune (municipality) of Riomaggiore, in the province of La Spezia, Liguria, Northern Italy. It is the second-smallest of the famous Cinque Terre towns frequented by tourists, with a population of 353.

Overview
Manarola may be the oldest of the towns in the Cinque Terre, with the cornerstone of the church, San Lorenzo, dating from 1338. The local dialect is Manarolese, which is marginally different from the dialects in the nearby area. The name "Manarola" is probably a dialectical evolution of the Latin, "Magna rota". In the Manarolese dialect, this was changed to "Magna roea" which means "large wheel", about the mill wheel in the town. Manarola has a railway station on the Genoa–Pisa railway.

Manarola's primary industries have traditionally been fishing and wine-making. The local wine, called Sciacchetrà, is especially renowned; references from ancient Roman writings mention the high quality of the wine produced in the region. In recent years, Manarola and its neighboring towns have become popular tourist destinations, particularly in the summer months. Tourist attractions in the region include a famous walking trail between Manarola and Riomaggiore (called Via dell'Amore, "Love's Trail") and hiking trails in the hills and vineyards above the town. Manarola is one of the five villages of the Cinque Terre. Most of the houses are bright and colourful. Manarola was celebrated in paintings by Antonio Discovolo (1874–1956).

Presepe di Manarola
Since 1961, during the Christmas season, an evocative luminous nativity scene has been set up on the hill overlooking the village, whose characters, handcrafted by Mario Andreoli, a retired railwayman, are made up of thousands and thousands of lights on special templates that give the representation a unique charm in the world. Andreoli built the original nucleus of the crib figures, of what was consecrated in 2007 as the largest nativity scene in the world. The statues were made with recycled materials. The lighting of the luminous nativity scene takes place every year on December 8.

In the days before December 8, 2022, the date on which the Nativity scene was lit, Andreoli had requested that the fireworks be made, an event not foreseen in recent years. On 22 December 2022, Andreoli died at the age of 94. His work in the creation of the manger, its preparation and conservation will be managed and preserved by the association that takes his name, established on November 2, 2017.

Via Crucis
In addition to the famous crib, during the Easter period, Andreoli created a luminous Via Crucis on the same hill.

Festa di San Lorenzo
For the Festa di San Lorenzo, Andreoli created a luminous representation of the saint on the grill, the place of his legendary martyrdom.

In popular culture
Like its fellow Cinque Terre town of Riomaggiore, it was featured in the video game Forza Horizon 2. Manarola was not featured as the main location but was referenced on various road signs.

The Cinque Terre towns, Manarola included, are the inspiration for the town of Portorosso in the 2021 animated film Luca.

title: Manarola


text:
Summer savory

Summer savory (Satureja hortensis) is among the best known of the savory genus. It is an annual, but otherwise is similar in use and flavor to the perennial winter savory. It is used more often than winter savory, which has a slightly more bitter flavor.

This herb has lilac tubular flowers which bloom in the northern hemisphere from July to September. It grows to around 30 to 60 cm in height and has very slender, bronze-green leaves.

The plant is called Bohnenkraut in German, bonenkruid in Dutch, sarriette in French, santoreggia in Italian, segurelha in Portuguese, ajedrea in Spanish, θρούμπι () in Greek, cząber in Polish, чубрица () in Bulgarian, cimbru in Romanian, borsikafű in Hungarian, чубар () in Serbian, чабер (chaber) in Ukrainian, and жамбил (jambil) in Uzbek.

Taxonomy
The species name Satureja hortensis was first published in 1753 by Carl von Linné in Species Plantarum, Volume II (page 568). Homotypic synonyms are Clinopodium hortense (L.) (Kuntze, 1891) and Thymus cunila (E.H.L.Krause, 1903). Heterotypic synonyms are Clinopodium pachyphyllum (K.Koch, Kuntze, 1891), Satureja altaica (Boriss., 1953), Satureja brachiata (Stokes, 1812), Satureja filicaulis (Schott ex Boiss., 1879), Satureja hortensis var. distans (K.Koch, 1849), Satureja laxiflora subsp. zuvandica (D.A.Kapan., 1987), Satureja litwinowii (Schmalh. ex Lipsky, 1899), Satureja officinarum (Crantz, 1766), Satureja pachyphylla (K.Koch, 1844), Satureja viminea (Burm.f., 1768) and Satureja zuvandica (D.A.Kapan., 1985).

Distribution
Summer savory is native in Southeastern Europe and Asia. In Europe, the herb is native in Italy, the former Yugoslav territories and Albania and the Crimea. In Asia, summer savory is native in Kazakhstan, the western Himalayas and Xinjiang. The herb has been introduced to North America (Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Illinois, New York, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) and to more regions across Europe (Baleares, Belgium, Bulgaria, Corse, Czech Republic, Denmark, east and south European Russia, France, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine) and Asia (Bahrain, India, Mongolia, Primorye, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan). In addition, the herb is doubtfully present in the region of South Caucasus and Turkey.

History
The Latin name Saureja hortensis comes from a Roman writer named Pliny, and it is said to be a derivative of the word satyr. Legends state that the herb belonged to this ancient creature, which led to the name saureja. Their primary use was in cooking during the roman times. It was used to flavour foods until black pepper made its way to Europe, which replaced most of summer savory's uses. During the reign of Julius Caesar the romans introduced the herb to England, where it also became a popular herb for cooking and was used in medicine. The English name comes from the Saxons who were calling it savory for its pungent taste. In the 17th century the English botanist Nicolas Culpeper wrote that the herb had wind expelling properties. Making summer savory more used in medical purposes. The herb was only cultivated in the 19th century. Before it was found as a wild growing shrub.

In the 21 century summer savory is cultivated in France, Spain, Germany, England and other parts of Europe, Canada and the United States of America. When bought for culinary use the herb contains the dried leaves and flowers.

Habitat
Summer savory can grow from propagated seeds in a moderately fertile environment, usually in a rich, light soil, as they usually take longer to germinate. Usually, this species prefers dry gravel and stone slopes of up to 1500 meters as their habitat. This herb can be grown in pots, ornamental borders and herb gardens and is an excellent companion plant that can deter aphids when grown next to broad beans.

Chemical composition
The leaves of summer savory are abundant in total phenolic compounds (rosmarinic acid and flavonoids) that have a powerful antioxidant impact. Tannins, volatile oils, sterols, acids, gums, pyrocatechol, phenolic compounds, and mucilage are primary components of the Satureja species. Terpenes are also another component provided by summer savory that allow its unique taste, smell and health benefits. Additionally, it also possesses Fe (III) reductive and free radical scavenging properties and contains minerals like potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, and sodium, as well as vitamins such as niacin, pyridoxine, riboflavin, thiamine, vitamin A and vitamin C. Its seeds contain chemicals such as carvacrol, estragole (methyl chavicol), caryophyllene, and E-caryophyllene, which are composed of 45% dry basis of fixed oil and 24% protein. The leaves are a good source of carvacrol, γ-terpinene and ρ-Cymene.

Other than the culinary use as a herb, it can also be extracted for its essential oil. Leaves yield approximately 0.5-1% essential oil that is light yellow or brown with slightly sharp phenolic notes similar to oregano and thyme. Major components of essential oils extracted from summer savory are carvacrol, thymol, γ-terpinene, and ρ-cymene, while α-terpinene, β-caryophyllene and β-bisabolene are found in smaller quantities. Phenolic content within the essential oil, especially that of carvacrol, varies from 23.8-55%.

Nutritional value
Nutritional content per 100 grams of summer savory.

Ecology
Summer savory grows wild but it is also beneficial for the garden ecosystem since it attracts various pollinators. Because of its tubular flower shape, the nectar is encapsulated in the flower which makes it hard to reach for pollinators. The main pollinators of summer savory are bees, bumblebees, wasps, Bombyliidae and hoverflies, which support plant reproduction and seed production. Diaspores are the seeds which are dispersed by ants through a process known as myrmecochory.

The flowers of summer savory are more modest in appearance and, just as with chamomile and thyme, tend to attract a greater number of beneficial insects compared to for example roses and chrysanthemums that are often favored for their beauty. This makes it an option for gardeners looking to encourage biodiversity and provide food for these crucial pollinators while also being easily cultivated from seed or cutting.

The early spring seedlings are often topped for fresh use in June. When the plants are in flower, they may be pulled up and dried for winter use. Summer savory can be collected when the plant reaches around 15 centimetres in height and when it is in full flowering stage. It reaches that point after approximately 75–120 days. To promote further growth the tops should be regularly trimmed. For storage, the plant needs to be dried by hanging it up in little bundles. Once dry, the leaves need to be removed in order to store them in sealed jars and once the seeds brown, they can be preserved with a desiccant in a similar airtight manner.

The plant only lives for a single summer which makes it an annual plant.

Cuisine
Summer savory is a traditional popular herb in Atlantic Canada, where it is used in the same way sage is elsewhere. It is the main flavoring in dressing for many fowl, mixed with ground pork and other basic ingredients to create a thick meat dressing known as cretonnade (cretonade) which may be eaten with turkey, goose and duck. It also is used to make stews such as fricot, and in meat pies. It is usually available year-round in local grocery stores in dried form and is used in varying proportions, sometimes added to recipes in large generous heaping spoonfuls (such as in cretonnade), and sometimes more subtly (as in beans, for which savory has a natural affinity).

Summer savory is a characteristic ingredient of herbes de Provence. It is also widely used as a seasoning for grilled meats and barbecues, as well as in stews and sauces.

Summer savory is preferred over winter savory for use in sausages because of its sweeter, more delicate aroma. It plays an important role in Bulgarian cuisine, providing a strong flavor to a variety of dishes. Instead of salt and pepper, a Bulgarian table will have three condiments: salt, red sweet pepper, and summer savory. When these are mixed it is called sharena sol (шарена сол 'speckled salt').

Summer savory, known as cimbru, is used in Romanian cuisine, especially in sarmale (stuffed cabbage or grape leaf rolls) and in mititei (grilled ground meat rolls).

Alcohol
Regarding its use in alcohol, summer savory is not often used as an ingredient in alcoholic beverages. But with its flavour profile, it is an addition to some artisanal or craft spirits and liqueurs. The herb, known for its pungent piney flavor with peppery hints, could impart a spicy, peppery note to such beverages, potentially complementing other botanicals since it is often compared to a cross between mint and thyme.

Given summer savorys traditional use in vinegar preservation by the ancient Romans, it can be infused in vinegar-based cocktails or used as a garnish to add a subtle, herby touch to certain drinks. In culinary applications, it is also used because of its ability to add a salty and peppery flavor without increasing sodium intake.

Medicine
The use of summer savory dates back to being used by the Romans for traditional medicinal remedies and it has since been used by many other cultures to treat symptoms such as cramps, stomach pains, nausea, indigestion, and more.

Studies such as “In Vitro Antibacterial, Antifungal, and Antioxidant Activities of the Essential Oil and Methanol Extracts of Herbal Parts and Callus Cultures of Satureja Hortensis L.”  and “Antispasmodic and Anti-Diarrhoeal Effect of Satureja Hortensis L. Essential Oil.”, along with others, have proved that there is a relationship between the plant and its curing properties.

These properties are due to the chemical composition and the presence of steroids, essential oils, flavonoids, and other components, which have anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic, sedative, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties.

title: Summer savory


text:
User talk:Pacotaco321

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hadal 03:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pacotaco321


text:
Category talk:Fijian chiefs

Untitled
On the "Fijian Chiefs" category, how were they identified????...one would think that there are only 24 Chiefs as I believe there are other more prominent chiefs in Fiji.
 * Category pages are automatically generated based on pages having the category tag in them. Thus, if you added Cakobau, Seru Epenisa to an article, it would add Seru Epenisa Cakobau to the category you're commenting on. --Durin 04:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Fijian chiefs


text:
User:JackMcNasty

Hello, I'm JackMcNasty. Thanks for your help.

title: User:JackMcNasty


text:
Skew lines

In three-dimensional geometry, skew lines are two lines that do not intersect and are not parallel. A simple example of a pair of skew lines is the pair of lines through opposite edges of a regular tetrahedron. Two lines that both lie in the same plane must either cross each other or be parallel, so skew lines can exist only in three or more dimensions. Two lines are skew if and only if they are not coplanar.

General position
If four points are chosen at random uniformly within a unit cube, they will almost surely define a pair of skew lines. After the first three points have been chosen, the fourth point will define a non-skew line if, and only if, it is coplanar with the first three points. However, the plane through the first three points forms a subset of measure zero of the cube, and the probability that the fourth point lies on this plane is zero. If it does not, the lines defined by the points will be skew.

Similarly, in three-dimensional space a very small perturbation of any two parallel or intersecting lines will almost certainly turn them into skew lines. Therefore, any four points in general position always form skew lines.

In this sense, skew lines are the "usual" case, and parallel or intersecting lines are special cases.

Testing for skewness
If each line in a pair of skew lines is defined by two points that it passes through, then these four points must not be coplanar, so they must be the vertices of a tetrahedron of nonzero volume. Conversely, any two pairs of points defining a tetrahedron of nonzero volume also define a pair of skew lines. Therefore, a test of whether two pairs of points define skew lines is to apply the formula for the volume of a tetrahedron in terms of its four vertices. Denoting one point as the 1×3 vector $a$ whose three elements are the point's three coordinate values, and likewise denoting $b$, $c$, and $d$ for the other points, we can check if the line through $a$ and $b$ is skew to the line through $c$ and $d$ by seeing if the tetrahedron volume formula gives a non-zero result:

 * $$V=\frac{1}{6}\left|\det\left[\begin{matrix}\mathbf{a}-\mathbf{b} \\ \mathbf{b}-\mathbf{c} \\ \mathbf{c}-\mathbf{d} \end{matrix}\right]\right|.$$

Nearest points
Expressing the two lines as vectors:

 * $$\text{Line 1:} \; \mathbf{v_1}=\mathbf{p_1}+t_1\mathbf{d_1}$$
 * $$\text{Line 2:} \; \mathbf{v_2}=\mathbf{p_2}+t_2\mathbf{d_2}$$

The cross product of $$\mathbf{d_1}$$ and $$\mathbf{d_2}$$ is perpendicular to the lines.

 * $$ \mathbf{n}= \mathbf{d_1} \times \mathbf{d_2}$$

The plane formed by the translations of Line 2 along $$ \mathbf{n}$$ contains the point $$ \mathbf{p_2}$$ and is perpendicular to $$ \mathbf{n_2}= \mathbf{d_2} \times \mathbf{n}$$.

Therefore, the intersecting point of Line 1 with the above-mentioned plane, which is also the point on Line 1 that is nearest to Line 2 is given by

 * $$ \mathbf{c_1}=\mathbf{p_1}+ \frac{(\mathbf{p_2}-\mathbf{p_1})\cdot\mathbf{n_2}}{\mathbf{d_1}\cdot\mathbf{n_2}} \mathbf{d_1}$$

Similarly, the point on Line 2 nearest to Line 1 is given by (where $$ \mathbf{n_1}= \mathbf{d_1} \times \mathbf{n}$$ )

 * $$ \mathbf{c_2}=\mathbf{p_2}+ \frac{(\mathbf{p_1}-\mathbf{p_2})\cdot\mathbf{n_1}}{\mathbf{d_2}\cdot\mathbf{n_1}} \mathbf{d_2}$$

Distance
The nearest points $$ \mathbf{c_1}$$ and $$ \mathbf{c_2}$$ form the shortest line segment joining Line 1 and Line 2:

 * $$ d = \Vert \mathbf{c_1} - \mathbf{c_2} \Vert.$$

The distance between nearest points in two skew lines may also be expressed using other vectors:

 * $$ \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{a} + \lambda \mathbf{b};$$
 * $$ \mathbf{y} = \mathbf{c} + \mu \mathbf{d}.$$

Here the 1×3 vector $x$ represents an arbitrary point on the line through particular point $a$ with $b$ representing the direction of the line and with the value of the real number $$\lambda$$ determining where the point is on the line, and similarly for arbitrary point $y$ on the line through particular point $c$ in direction $d$.

The cross product of b and d is perpendicular to the lines, as is the unit vector

 * $$ \mathbf{n} = \frac{\mathbf{b} \times \mathbf{d}}{|\mathbf{b} \times \mathbf{d}|} $$

The perpendicular distance between the lines is then

 * $$ d = |\mathbf{n} \cdot (\mathbf{c} - \mathbf{a})|.$$

(if |b × d| is zero the lines are parallel and this method cannot be used).

Configurations
A configuration of skew lines is a set of lines in which all pairs are skew. Two configurations are said to be isotopic if it is possible to continuously transform one configuration into the other, maintaining throughout the transformation the invariant that all pairs of lines remain skew. Any two configurations of two lines are easily seen to be isotopic, and configurations of the same number of lines in dimensions higher than three are always isotopic, but there exist multiple non-isotopic configurations of three or more lines in three dimensions. The number of nonisotopic configurations of n lines in R3, starting at n = 1, is
 * 1, 1, 2, 3, 7, 19, 74, ....

Ruled surfaces
If one rotates a line L around another line M skew but not perpendicular to it, the surface of revolution swept out by L is a hyperboloid of one sheet. For instance, the three hyperboloids visible in the illustration can be formed in this way by rotating a line L around the central white vertical line M. The copies of L within this surface form a regulus; the hyperboloid also contains a second family of lines that are also skew to M at the same distance as L from it but with the opposite angle that form the opposite regulus. The two reguli display the hyperboloid as a ruled surface.

An affine transformation of this ruled surface produces a surface which in general has an elliptical cross-section rather than the circular cross-section produced by rotating L around L'; such surfaces are also called hyperboloids of one sheet, and again are ruled by two families of mutually skew lines. A third type of ruled surface is the hyperbolic paraboloid. Like the hyperboloid of one sheet, the hyperbolic paraboloid has two families of skew lines; in each of the two families the lines are parallel to a common plane although not to each other. Any three skew lines in R3 lie on exactly one ruled surface of one of these types.

Gallucci's theorem
If three skew lines all meet three other skew lines, any transversal of the first set of three meets any transversal of the second set.

Skew flats in higher dimensions
In higher-dimensional space, a flat of dimension k is referred to as a k-flat. Thus, a line may also be called a 1-flat.

Generalizing the concept of skew lines to d-dimensional space, an i-flat and a j-flat may be skew if $i + j < d$. As with lines in 3-space, skew flats are those that are neither parallel nor intersect.

In affine d-space, two flats of any dimension may be parallel. However, in projective space, parallelism does not exist; two flats must either intersect or be skew. Let $I$ be the set of points on an i-flat, and let $J$ be the set of points on a j-flat. In projective d-space, if $i + j ≥ d$ then the intersection of $I$ and $J$ must contain a (i+j−d)-flat. (A 0-flat is a point.)

In either geometry, if $I$ and $J$ intersect at a k-flat, for $k ≥ 0$, then the points of $I ∪ J$ determine a (i+j−k)-flat.

title: Skew lines