Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 25 June 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James T. Kirk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

James T. Kirk received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Trek Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This article is a complete mess

This whole thing reads almost like a stream of consciousness outpouring from someone utterly obsessed with Chris Pine. There is no structure to the character's life, career or development at all. This is supposed to about about the character James T Kirk.

Clearly there has been an ongoing edit war here, which is not wholly unexpected from Star Trek fans, but this one really is a humdinger. We've got obsessive classic Trekkers clashing with someone who evidently has wet dreams about Chris Pine. In the resulting mayhem, facts are jumbled up with movie reviews, and clarity has been utterly lost. This is perhaps the worst single summing up of the life of a fictional character I have ever come across, and as an encyclopedic entry it completely fails. It's mixed up, imbalanced, emotive, and basically incoherent.

Guys, get this sorted, or I will rewrite the entire thing myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk • contribs)

Well, let's see: two of the eight Development paragraphs are about Pine; one of the six Depiction paragraphs is about Pine's version of the character. Half of one paragraph, out of five total, focuses on reception to Pine's portrayal. "Utterly obsessed" with Pine, with "wet dreams"? Not so much. Lack of structure? Nah, structure is pretty clear, and follows the format used in multiple featured articles about fictional characters, like Master Chief (Halo) and Palpatine. Mixed up, emotive, incoherent, imbalanced? No, it's well-cited, thorough, and neutral. The only "complete mess" I see here is this lame attempt at trolling. But, hey, if you think the article is so awful, fix it rather than pretend to whine about it. However, seeing as how your most recent contributions under this anonymous IP consist of griping and antagonizing on talk pages, that's probably too much to ask. --EEMIV (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Instead of resorting instantly to personal abuse, do you not fancy taking another look at the entry and try separating the life of the character from the actors who played him? It's an utter mash up. Try this, instead of just labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "troll". "EEMIV" is no less anonymous than an IP number. I do not edit main articles but would be happy in this case to eschew all this emotional involvement you guys display here and completely fix up this entry for you if you want? I know an excellent authority on the life and times of James T Kirk who would be delighted to give a clear, concise, factual and well structured entry - one that would actually make sense to those who are not card carrying members of Trek fandom. I think that's reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know such an authority, please do consult him and let us know what's wrong with the article. Alastairward (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Meantime, it might be useful if you guys called a truce and agreed to let just one of you write the whole thing. Main problem is it's clearly been pasted together by too many contributors determined to put their own stamp on the Kirk story - it's about as cohesive as the script for Plan 9 From Outer Space. Naturally, the new Star Trek movie has set the cat amongst the pigeons here and caused a bit of a ding-dong between the obsessives, and the resulting confusion reads like a movie review has been shredded into the mix. This entry is the result of what has obviously been a pretty nasty edit war. Please, take it from me: to someone just looking at the article to find out about the character (as the character, not the actors), there is no clear narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to be civil, assume good faith on behalf of other users and remember that no one person owns an article. Please also remember not to make the article too "in-universe" orientated. Alastairward (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for the "in-universe" point. I realise there are parameters (and a canonical minefield) when detailing with the biography of a fictional character, but at the same time I do not want to have to wade through information about (for example) what Bill Shatner thought about not being asked to cameo in the latest movie (that surely belongs on his page). Can I suggest to any potential single authors of this entry to check out the Oliver Twist page - it's an excellent example of a bio of a fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sidestepping for a moment some of the evaluative invective above, I think the anon - if they are actually intending to make some significant changes to the article, should seriously consider setting up an account. Anons making big changes in articles are usually seen with a gimlet eye. - Arcayne () 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Arcayne & EEIMV, I'm not out of this discussion, but I haven't seen the movie yet and I don't want to spoil it so I'm being very careful on what I'm reading right now. I'm sure I'll have more comments to add after I see it this weekend. Erikeltic (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just by the by, but I checked out the Oliver Twist character page, it's basically a plot rehash and could do with the same attention this article received. Alastairward (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that before or after I removed its citations to Sparknotes(!!!)? ;-) --EEMIV (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now I've upset the Star Trek fans. Guess it underlines the case for a NPOV rewrite of this article. Anyone out there not going to automatically reach for their sarcasm phasers just because they get a little bit of criticism? You know, a simple "rehash of the plot" would actually explain a lot more about the Captain Kirk character than this car crash of conflicting special interests. Is a straightforward narrative really too much to ask? I feel like I'm grappling with Comic Book Store Guy from the Simpsons. Although I am grateful to have a new phrase to add to my vocabulary: "a gimlet eye". A gimlet eye. Love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, why don't we all just cut to the chase then. 87.246.71.166, if you see something specific you'd like us to work on (actually quote the text) then we'll work on it. If you have something you'd like to add, be bold and do so. Chasing around the talk page will do nobody any good if there's something genuine to do for this article that will benefit readers. Alastairward (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's two specifics:

1) Kirk's Starfleet decorations. These are mentioned at length in "Court Martial" before the list is cut short. What are Kirks full decorations? No mention of them here. 2) Don't want to spoil the film for anyone, but it takes place in an alternate universe/timeline. So Chris Pine's version of Kirk has actually no more relevance to the "real" Kirk than the version of Kirk who appeared in "Mirror Mirror". This too was a parallel universe/timeline. No mention of it here, so why all the focus on the Chris Pine version? Simply because it's a big budget movie rather than a 50 minute episode? The life and career of the Kirk in "Mirror Mirror" was pretty detailed - it should have every bit as much weight (or conversely lack of notability) as the Chris Pine Kirk. Now, I use Wiki a lot, I donate to it occasionally, but I never presume to edit actual articles. I do on rare occasions get involved in discussion pages when - as a layman - I find that the main article is either irrelevant or confusing. I'll leave it here. All I will ask of you guys is that you reread the entry and consider it from the point of view of someone who does not have any back knowledge of the character. I'm not asking for an idiots guide, but simply that the narrative is more linear and (dare I use the word) logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Anon will not be back, but what he/she/it mentioned is dealt with by (IMO) 1) trivia and 2) the fact that a new actor is playing the character in a significant role. Pretty straightforward. Alastairward (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --EEMIV (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Collage

I commend the image as a diligent compilation of Kirk pics, but the image should be changed. While collected into a single JPEG, it is still a collection of non-free images. The collage is a fair use violation, similar to an image gallery. Simply, the collage is excessive use, and should likely be parred down for the benfit of the article to two of these images. My suggestion is to keep the two Kirk images from the films. -Sharp962 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

I have nominated the image for deletion, discussion can be found here -Sharp962 (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

I voted keep. If anything else, I think Shatner, Pine, Cawley, and cartoon & plastic Kirk add something to the article. I don't believe it violates anything. Erikeltic (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some good suggestions for future images had been brought up on the deletion discussion, that I was hoping to continue here. The images of Shatner, Pine and or Cawley, might be used and meet minimal use criteria. The article might benifit from future images not in collage form, this would utilize the pics to better illustrate their individual points. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

As per that comment, I've added an image fo Cawley, and moved around comments to shore up any fair use complaints that might arise. As the collage has been deleted (and somewhat rightfully so, as it added passing and non-serious portrayals of the character as well as toys and cartoons), we have to add the images singly. - Arcayne () 23:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cawley image is a good addition (although it looks like there is too much coffee in the future), and good job on liscence for Pine. I think current images suffice and meet fair-use, as they illustrate well and more specific than the collage. -Sharp962 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I appreciate the second look. :) - Arcayne () 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting Changes

I have made a few formatting changes, per the discussion at WP:Star Trek. All in all, I think it looks really nice. Thoughts? Erikeltic (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It does look nice. I fixed up the Cawley stuff and added an appropriate image for use. - Arcayne () 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

With the collage's removal, I don't see much point in retaining the lesser-known, non-iconic images of Pine and Cawley. The article lacks commentary on the portrayals' physical description, and the pictures do not in any way add significantly? or is substantially? to readers' understanding of the article. Probably all three pictures could be axed. Regardless, I plan to IfD both the Pine and Cawley images. --EEMIV (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

where to put the fan stuff

I'm pretty sure the talk-page consensus here or at Spock or at McCoy or somewhere settled that fan-film and other fan-made depictions of these characters are appropriate in the reaction/reception section -- and that the "depiction" section would be limited to licensed/studio portrayals. But, I can't find the conversation. Can someone point me toward it? --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about this a while ago here in Kirk (we're all still licking our wounds from those 2 weeks!) and I really think that there should be a section on the primary Trek biographies called Cultural Impact. In that section, I think that the article should begin with the importance/ impact that the character(s) have had on our culture. From there, it could move into the fan productions in a really nice, clear, clean, and respectful way. It will keep the article uncluttered and improve flow. I'm sure Arcayne will have something to say about this, but if we had a section like that it would be something he could really run with because of the passion he has for the Phase II productions. I'd even be up for helping out as much as I could with it. I think it would help the article(s). Erikeltic (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Who really cares what Arcayne thinks. He acts like a troll. We also need to delete that picture of Cawley. Also (IMHO) Phase II sucks anyway. I mean if I put up a video of me as Captain Kirk on YouTube should it be included in this article? No. So, let's get rid of the Phase II stuff in this article. SChaos1701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Regardless of what Arcayne thinks, pro or con, we shouldn't delete the image of Cawley. Your opinion that the show "sucks" is just that, your opinion - and Misplaced Pages doesn't revolve around your opinion. Phase II is entirely notable, mentions of it are well-referenced, and removing it from the article because of personal biases, either against the series or certain editors, is both wrong-headed and against policy. IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, SChaos, dial back the aggro - it only increases your blood pressure and is doesn't really affect me at all. Chill out and work with people. Your argument about putting an image of yourself up as Kirk on YouTube is seriously flawed on numerous counts. First, you (probably) not an actor, so I am guessing your performance might as professional as a parent's giggling baby video, or one where a dog is filmed eating peanut butter. Secondly, we aren't talking about Youtube. Phase II has its own website, production schedule, etc. In a word, its professional, well-done and recognized by the actual trek folk at Paramount (as per citation in the article). Thirdly - and perhaps more importantly - your opinion is useless here. That isn't meant as a kick in the teeth; SC; you aren't citable, and you need to put a lot more effort into being neutral than you are currently displaying. that in itself is easily perceived as "trollish" behavior. Keep that in mind.

I was going to discuss this here, but it seems the topic is being discussed by proxy in the AfD discussion of the Cawley image. For what its worth, the edits I made dividing Cawley into Cultural impact as well as Depiction seem a fair cop. I mean, seriously, what person in their right mind is going to argue that the fan film depiction isn't a dramatic portrayal of the character? We have a citation speaking to that portrayal, which essentially pimp-slaps any argument countering it. We aren't citable, and our personal opinions do not counterbalance citable references. Period. The only reason that the same sorts of arguments aren't occurring at McCoy, Scotty, etc article images is that they aren't supported by reliable citation, and I would personally fight against the inclusion of those fan portrayal images without it reliable references speaking to the portrayal. - Arcayne () 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the Cawley stuff to the reaction section. For one thing, the meat of the blurb Acrcayne keeps putting in the "depiction part" is, in fact, critical reaction. For another thing, the portrayals is a fan reaction to the character's/show's success. --EEMIV (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've put it back. Let's leave it there for now, and discuss this further. We are both very strong personalities, and that sort of back and forth is just going to end with us at each others' throats - hardly productive. We can find middle ground, but edit-warring is going to simply cloud the issue.

The so-called "critical reaction" to Cawley's portrayal is specific to those traits of Kirk's which are brought to the fore by Cawley's portrayal. I guess it cold also go in Development (along with the image) in between the Shatner and Pine portrayals. The only part that belongs in Critical reaction is the Paramount writer's referring to Cawley as Kirk. - Arcayne () 14:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wired's critical reaction to Cawley's performance appropriate in the "depiction" section but Shatner's is appropriate in the "Critical reaction" section? Wired is referring to Cawley's performance/Cawley-as-actor, not anything "in-universe", as is appropriate in the depiction section. --EEMIV (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't change it mid-stream. Leave it where it was at the start of this discussion. Erikeltic (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Fine, let's strawpoll it: The content about Cawley's performance of Kirk -- to whit, reference to the continuing online portrayal, Wired's critical reaction, and the anecdote about the Enterprise writers shouting "Hey Kirk" at him -- should stay in the Reaction section, if anywhere at all. This is the default position/assumption for other notable fan/amateur performances of Kirk (e.g. other web series, a Star Trek version of "Star Wars in 30 seconds").

• Support - The existence of the fan series is itself a reaction to the studio performance. The actual substantive, cited content about Cawley's appearance is Wired's critical reaction to his portrayal, and does not at all expand on the character's depiction. --EEMIV (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully, that's your opinion. The argument that the fan series is a reaction to the studio performance could easily be made about STNG, DS9, Enterprise and all of the films. As far as arguments go, it isn't the strongest. Secondly, the poll question is pretty skewed to give you the results you want; a better question would be: Where should the content of Cawley's portrayal be noted? which, i am sure you will agree is far less neutral. - Arcayne () 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, however, STNG, DS9, and Enterprise introduced new characters having new adventures. Each show introduced new ideas to the Trek universe. Those works are original unto themselves and have their own articles accordingly. To answer your question: in the Reception area. Erikeltic (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am unfamiliar with Phase II, but upon reading more, I believe that the series is noteworthy enough to make mention, but I see where the difficulty is in placement. Upon reading the article, the Cawley section fits best with Depiction over Development but does not fit well in either. The Cawley section seems not to fit well in either place in the article, which could be resolve by a rewrite of either the Cawley, Depiction or Development section to create a smoother transition. I wish I could help more with this, but I am not familiar with Phase II to create a fair representation. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

I think that's a fair assesment of the problem, Sharp962, the article having been written with only Shatner and Pine's portrayals being emphasized. If you want to take a crack at it, I am sure that someone can help out when you hit a pocket of misunderstanding of Phase II stuff. :) - Arcayne () 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per EEMIV. I too think it belongs in Reception (at best) or in a sub-section called Cultural Impact. Had it not been for the original Trek, Cawley would not even be on the radar screen. I reiterate earlier statements about the derivative nature of Phase II and still believe that any reference to it belongs in reception (or Cultural Impact). Erikeltic (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Using that reasoning (and remarkable lack of citation), it could be argued that after Enterprise nearly killed the franchise, that Cawley et. al. kept the original spirit alive long enough to foster interest in a reboot. Following that chain of thought, Pine also belongs in Cultural impact. I am sorry, but I am not going to agree with any edit that minimizes Cawley's portrayal. He is one of three people who have seriously interpreted the role. At the very least, his portrayal deserves equal footing with that of Pine. Anything that removes or marginalizes Cawley is a non-starter for me. - Arcayne () 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Star Trek articles
• Top-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles