Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Star Trek: The Original Series. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

Given the food-related bent of this page, I wonder if I should move my episodic piss-take elsewhere? --IMBJR 22:33, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Facts

Some of the 'Facts' on this page can probably be deleted. GravityIsForSuckers 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A New Idea

Given how much trekkies hate being associated with Star Wars, why not make this into a seemingly legitimate page about star wars, but replace the word 'Wars' with 'Trek' every single time. 69.158.63.172 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it...At the moment this page is not funny in anyway.

So How is this Funny?

This article is just dumb. No humour at all.

General Tso's Chicken 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I lol'd.141.195.156.132 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It sure seems to need some love/attention. I guess I'll come by soon to give it some ol' fashioned parenting (whip it with my belt until it bleeds from the arse). ~CaputosistheHorrible 16:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

HAD to get rid of that documents stuff. It's not funny. Time to delete the crap out of this. Matt lobster 12:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

tomorrow

I know I may have knackered this article. It neeeds a good idea. It needs funny.

put a template

I put in a template that I thought might be appropriate. If you don't like it, delete it, but I think it belongs. DarkBlue 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Conoyer

Someone please delete the "Conoyer" section - it violates the "Try to be funny not just stupid" rule. In spades. David Spades.

time travel machines

i edited the comment concerning time traveling delorians as the universe seems to be fresh out of them, flying steam trains seem to be the going replacement (see the last 5 mins of back to the future 3). 220.253.95.242 14:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Andrew H

After all these years it's still not funny

We're talking Star Trek? The series that's had more hilarious take-offs than any television series since Dragnet? And we have an article that wouldn't make Spock laugh. OK, so no article would make Spock laugh, but that's not the point. This article should be hilarious. Instead, it's bleh. Binky The WonderSkull 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you've got good ideas try to draft out a new version. There's no point going down the same route as all the established jokes. I see you've been working on Lost in Space. This seems to be currently a copy of the ideas from the current Star Trek article.mAttlobster. (hello) 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I must confess I never read the Star Trek article before I edited Lost in Space. I probably should have, but I didn't. Binky The WonderSkull 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this as an Imperial Colonization project. Binky The WonderSkull 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a nice Star Trek article in the German uncyclopedia, and I am pondering to merge a couple of the ideas into this one. How's that? NaturalBornKieler (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fell free to sign up to join Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization, vote to fix Star Trek, and we can do it! Binky The WonderSkull 04:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what's wrong with it at the moment? Prose, the general idea, style of humour, what? mAttlobster. (hello) 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Binky The WonderSkull 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, so "Yes" is a pretty curt answer. (Matt lobster, please see my comments on your user talk before you continue reading. I sound pretty mean below, but I love some of your writing on other articles).

It would be easier for me to say what I like about the article, so here it is:

1) The Title "Star Trek." Good name for an article about Star Trek.

2) The joke Kirk makes about Who's a better captain, Kirk or Kirk? On second thought, I don't much care for that either.

3) Equating "Where no Man has gone before" to sex. Except that really should be about virgins to work.

Honestly, that's it. I think the rest of the article would be improved by throwing it out the airlock. It has pieces of about 20 different ideas all thrown together. It looks like some Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans and Humans all got twisted and mashed together in a cataclysmic transporter malfunction. In short, it's a mess. Binky The WonderSkull 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article is particularly bad but I think it's not outstanding (and I understand that the Imperial colonization project aims at creating outstanding articles for certain topics that are likely to attract many page views). But I would like to point out one particular flaw: The topic "Star Trek" includes in fact several different topics: first, the "original series", and then, the whole Star Trek "franchise" and the "Star Trek Universe". The article does not really decide on its own central theme right now. I think that there should be at least two articles, one for the "Star Trek Universe" and one for the "Star Trek Original Series". While other subseries like DS9 and Voyager have their own article already, TOS has not. May I propose the following: I think I could construct a nice article about the "Star Trek Universe" from the German Star Trek article and I would like to do that (I'd appreciate some proofreading when I'm done). I also think that the topic "The Star Trek franchise" should get a separate article dealing with Roddenberry, the history of Star Trek, and the commercial aspects. But first things first. - Binky, I think I'm not the person to join Imperial Colonization because English is not my first language and anyway, I concentrate my main satirical efforts on the German Uncyclopedia. But at the moment there are some translation activities going on and in this context I had that idea. Cheers. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Star Trek page could be a Disambiguation or a background article that links to Star Trek: The Original Series, which needs to be written. Binky The WonderSkull 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that now (creating a Star Trek Universe article, I mean). See the result in User:NaturalBornKieler/TranslationLab2. Comments welcome. I'll add a little more and then give it to the proofreading guys. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you've got something better before replacing the work of genius that is the current Star Trek. Maybe place this one on VFD so that its demise can be voted on. What I'm saying is either this article is not good enough to survive VFD or you or someone else write something that is better than this page. Then remove it. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I made it clear that I do not intend to replace the existing Star Trek article. The article I translated will have the title The Star Trek Universe. I further propose two more articles to be created, one article Star Trek - The Original Series and one article The Star Trek franchise, but this is only an idea right now. I think the content of the existing Star Trek article could then be brought into these two, and of course improved. And only after that, as a final step, we could pursue Binky's idea and create a disambiguation/overview page. NaturalBornKieler (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your idea will work just fine. Only thing I'd add is maybe we could create a box that links to all the Star Trek articles and put that on all of them. Binky The WonderSkull 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)