Forum:Star Trek.com linking

A recent edit here lead me to ask: are we're even going to bother doing this? I really don't see the point but if we are then there needs to be a template for it.
 * A template would be good, since there are quite a few of these links right now. I don't see any reason to stop anyone from linking to Star Trek.com, since it's not like it is a fannon site. - Archduk3:talk 22:35, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you say so. I admit been gradually adding links onto the various character pages (starting with the main characters), as well as filling in missing Mem.Beta and Wiki links. I've also made a few consistancy tweaks here and there (e.g. starship name italics, appendix section formatting, etc).
 * It's a relatively simple bit of code, and although Tolian Soran's probably not the best example, some of the character pages at StarTrek.com (e.g. Jean Luc Picard) are much fuller and worth linking. Plus, it's all as cannon as you could hope for.
 * If it's causing a problem then I'm happy to stop, but is a template really required before making any more? &mdash; Sienar (talk) 22:37, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

We need to discuss it more first before you make a template. Startrek.com is not a very good name for that. Maybe something like STLink or something that says it's a startrek link. Oh well, either way it's done. &mdash; Morder (talk) 22:50, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree, StarTrek.com is a perfectly fine template name. It's exactly what it is.  Just like "IMDB", etc.  I wouldn't want to use simple "startrek" as a template name, for fear of future use covering.  Anyhow, he didn't make the template.  I did.  Mostly as an example to use.  Just because it's there doesn't mean that we have to keep it.  I was merely trying something to simplify the style and system of it. -- sulfur 22:54, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, StarTrek.com is not canon at all. They have a fair bit of non-canon stuff stuck in there. -- sulfur 22:54, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I meant to say "you" as in the general and not the specific. But I see how that was a problem on my side. I just think that StarTrek.com is a bit off for a name. Same with NCWiki template. The name doesn't fit what it is exactly. Though I'm sure it stands for Non-canon wiki it should probably be more something like MBLink or MBWiki or whatever. &mdash; Morder (talk) 22:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * The name aside, I would feel a little weird stopping someone from linking to the official site, even though we don't see eye to eye on the canon front. - Archduk3:talk 23:10, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed this and had mixed opinions on it- its non-canon, chiefly, and I think they just plain made stuff up if they needed to, but it is the official site, and we link to Memory Beta(which is licensed products), so I think ultimately it is reasonable to do this. A template is an excellent idea.--31dot 00:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sulfur on the StarTrek.com title issue. It's a brand name, like iPod or IMDB. Using it on the link makes it appear more authentic, don't you agree? P.s I think I took this off course with my cannon claim. If we link to Memory Beta, isn't it a little hypocritical to ignore StarTrek.com? &mdash; Sienar (talk) 00:34, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Morder. I know you didn't mean me personally. Not a problem. &mdash; Sienar (talk) 00:38, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Episode links
The new iteration of StarTrek.com contains full episodes of TOS and ENT. The ENT videos seem to be temporary (there's an ad somewhere on the site that says "for a limited time"), but as far as I can tell the TOS videos are intended to be a more or less permanent part of the site's architecture. If that's the case, I think it would be a good idea for us to link episode pages to those videos. I don't know whether the existing startrek.com template can be adapted, or a new one created for this purpose. —Josiah Rowe 21:42, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a US only thing. I can't see the eps.  So, I would suggest that we not bother linking to them, since most of the world can't access 'em. -- sulfur 21:47, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

But a large portion of MA's readership presumably can. As a point of comparison, the Doctor Who wiki links to BBC pages with episode videos which can be seen only by readers in the UK (e.g. w:c:doctorwho:The Eleventh Hour, which links to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rs6t7). Geolocking is annoying, but I think it makes sense to link to video on an official website in the program's country of origin. —Josiah Rowe 22:00, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The geography argument aside, I'm not convinced that should be part of our mission- does "being a reference to Star Trek" mean directing people to where they can find the episodes online? We don't tell them which stores to buy them in, or which stores to get their uniform costumes or phasers from.  I guess I would need some convincing there.
 * Back to geography, I'm a US citizen and I could see how it would be annoying to foreign readers to see links to episodes that they can't view.(I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of where users come from, if that were possible.) I could also see each episode page turn into a list of country-by-country links.  I'm not sure that would be a good thing.--31dot 01:20, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the benefits of having a useful and official link for at least a reasonable portion of our users far outweigh the alleged cost of having an additional link. If people want to add it to the episode pages, I say go right ahead. And I say that from Brisbane, Australia, the distant location with strange-sounding place names. ;-)– Cleanse ( talk 03:34, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

If we're worried about an excess of links to every online video location around the world where Star Trek episodes can be watched, it's simple enough for us to say "sorry, we only allow video links to the official Star Trek website for episodes". The benefit, I'd think, would be for US readers (who are presumably at least a plurality of the MA readership, if not the majority) who are reading the episode articles to be able to watch the episodes on an official, legal site if they so desire. I see that as different from products like replica uniforms or toy phasers, because those are merely produced under license. The episodes themselves are the source material. It would be like a Wikipedia article about a Shakespeare play linking to a site with the play's text. If a reader wants to verify anything in the plot synopsis of, say,, they would be able to follow a link and.

I understand the frustration caused by geolocking — of course I do, I'm a Doctor Who fan too, and the BBC website is full of video goodies I can't watch — but I think the potential benefit to the readers who can watch the videos on the official site would outweigh the potential frustration for those who might follow the link and find that they can't. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no need to cause potential frustration for non-American users; the links could have something like "(US only)" at the end and/or in the mouse-over.– Cleanse ( talk 05:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Good point. —Josiah Rowe 06:03, July 16, 2010 (UTC)