Talk:Star Trek: Section 31

Title

Is it confirmed that the title of this series is Section 31? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is just the common title. At the moment I don't think the series has actually officially been ordered yet, all the recent press releases have just said that it is in development. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Other drafts

I've redirected Draft:Untitled Philippa Georgiou series to this draft. There may be others. BilCat (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

FYI I have started a discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Section 31#Requested move 30 March 2024 that could impact this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Trek: Section 31 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does it use the television infobox when it's a film? Other streaming films like Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery and Teen Wolf: The Movie (the latter example also being a Paramount+ film spun off of a TV series) use the film infobox, and the argument of "it's a television film" doesn't hold up when there's no functional difference in this case other than vague meaningless marketing language. Goweegie2 (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not being a "pedant", this article has been using the television infobox for more than a year and you changed it without any explanation or discussion. I am well within my right to revert your WP:BOLD change and ask for you to gain consensus for it at the talk page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that other articles do something is not enough justification for it being done at another article.

As I noted in my edit summary, Glass Onion is not a good comparison because that is a feature film produced by a streaming company, not a TV film. Teen Wolf is a better comparison. For Teen Wolf and for Section 31 we have the option of using the film infobox or the TV film infobox since they are TV films. I believe the TV infbox is more appropriate, as this film is being produced by the same people who make the Star Trek TV series and is not equivalent to the Star Trek feature films that use the film infobox. For example, the main producers of this film are credited as Executive Producers--just as they are on the TV series--in all our reliable sources, and the TV infobox lets us credit them appropriately. If we used the film infobox we would not be able to include them unless we put them in the wrong place. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"reception section" needs to be restored

an editor has just removed most of the section for "reception." they had no consensus to do so. they removed material from several editors, and replaced it with their own version. Sm8900 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

tagging @Specialsam110, @TanookiMike, @kingarti, @BestDaysofMusic Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not remove "most of the section". I removed this sentence, which is unsourced and inappropriate: During the first week following the release of Star Trek: Section 31, there was a large quantity of reviews of the film, most of them negative. I removed the Forbes source per WP:FORBESCON. The rest is all still there, though I did give it a much needed c/e. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing this, unfortunately I do not think the full-writing-out of the headlines, the lack of naming the author, and the extensive quoting are appropriate. We need to do WP:INTEXT attribution and be more concise with referencing various reviews to avoid undue focus on any one of them. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I never edited the "Reception" section so I have no stake in this. I only took on the Herculean task of trying to write a first draft of the "plot" summary, which was also thankfully given a c/e by adamstom97 (I should have done it myself before uploading it, but the experience of not only watching this stinker but taking detailed notes on it had the effect of a Vulcan nerve pinch on me). Specialsam110 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on Star Trek: Section 31 Classification

Hello, everyone.

I would like some clarification regarding the classification of Star Trek: Section 31 as a television film. While I understand the film originated as a TV series and was developed by the Star Trek television crew, it was ultimately released directly to streaming as a Paramount+ original feature.

According to Wikipedia's article on the subject, a television film "is a feature-length film that is produced and originally distributed by or to a television network, in contrast to...direct-to-video films made for initial release on home video formats."

Based on this definition, Section 31 does not seem to qualify as a TV movie, as it was released directly to a streaming platform and not intended for broadcast on television once it ceased to be a series.

There appears to be some ambiguity surrounding this classification, and I would appreciate any insight into why some streaming films are labeled as TV movies here, while others (especially those of a similar nature to this one) are not. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe Section 31 as a "film based on a television series" and "the first non-theatrical Star Trek film," avoiding TV movie language?

I'm not trying to start a debate, just seeking clarity on the reasoning behind this classification. I understand "Article X does/doesn't do this, so Article Y should/shouldn't" isn't reason enough to change this page. Could someone please direct me to any relevant policies or guidelines on this matter? Thank you for your time and assistance! - UltimaGamer13 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A series made specifically for a streaming service, such as Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, is still a "television series" even though it wasn't made for traditional television. The same logic applies here, the film wasn't made for traditional television but it is made for streaming television which is what makes it a "television film". The fact that it was re-developed from a series isn't important, the same logic would apply if it was always intended to be a film. Saying "television film" also differentiates this from the theatrical feature films. The lines between traditional television, streaming, and home media have got quite blurry in the last 15 years or so and I suspect the article you are referring to hasn't been updated to reflect that. It is also unclear where the line is between television film and feature film when it comes to streaming services, this also came up in the Infobox discussion above and there are definitely similar projects that are not treated the same as this one on Wikipedia. One of the main arguments for sticking with the TV designation for this film is that it is specifically made by the Star Trek TV people rather than the theatrical film people, and it is treated like the series in terms of credits (e.g. it uses "executive producer" credits like a TV series). - adamstom97 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This all makes sense; however in the interest of being less ambiguous, is there another term we could use? "direct-to-streaming" film feels a bit awkward. Tduk (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The phrases "streaming series" and "streaming film" have been discouraged by WP:TV in my experience, and I think "direct-to-streaming" draws too much comparison to "direct-to-video" which is a whole separate thing. Television film for Paramount+ is the correct designation and I don't think it is ambiguous. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Awkward critic description

The film was panned by critics who gave it mostly negative reviews…

If critics gave the film "mostly" negative reviews, that means some gave it middling or positive reviews—so you can't use a blanket statement like "The film was panned by critics". Instead, how about "The film received mostly negative reviews…"? (You could omit "from critics" too, as any published review is, technically, that of a "critic"—but that may make too much sense for WP. 🤷‍♂️) 2604:3D08:537D:DF00:6C12:BA9D:1EFC:69B4 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I originally had this wording: It received mostly negative reviews from critics and was considered by some to be the worst entry in the Star Trek franchise. Captain Parmenter added the "panned" wording, which we should probably avoid since that term isn't sourced in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't done hard research on this, but hasn't just about every entry in the Star Trek universe been considered "the worst entry in the Star Trek franchise" by some people? Is that really a helpful phrase to have? Tduk (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In this case sites are using the Rotten Tomatoes data to back-up the statement, as it indicates that reviews are significantly worse than all other entries in the franchise other than Star Trek V, which has only a slightly better score. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The review scores just indicate it was considered bad (or review bombed), and that on average it is doing worse, but I don't think we can source that to claim in a meaningfully different way that it was "considered the worst entry", that feels a bit WP:SYNTHy. Referencing the scores should be enough. Tduk (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There isn't any WP:SYNTH here, we are quoting multiple sources which made this claim specifically. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 yes, totally agree. Agree Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair to quote the individual sources, but I think presenting it that way is giving it undue WP:WEIGHT as well. If there is a reliable source that mentions it being considered the worst by many, then that would be different, and there may be such a source. Tduk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a source in the reception section which tells us that multiple critics are calling it the worst entry in the franchise, that is why it is in the lead. I agree that it would be an issue if we had just copied a couple quotes from individual critics calling it the worst one and then put that in the lead as if it was a widespread opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Which source? Tduk (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I see it's the screencrush source. Is that an WP:RS? Tduk (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the wording to match what is sourced in the critical response section, that should handle the awkward wording that OP raised this thread about. If there are further concerns about the wording being used we can continue this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Nicely done! How do we define many vs. most in situations like this? I'm not aware of the conventions we follow on these kinds of articles. Tduk (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm not necessarily saying that the wrong word was picked; you probably picked the appropriate one. I'd just like to know going forward. Tduk (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Again, I haven't done this research - but maybe someone else has an idea. I think upon release, it's common for any new science fiction franchine branch to be considered "the worst in the franchise" by a good number of people. This is related to jumping the shark. Do we really have evidence that it's more so in this case, or is there just increased coverage of the negative reviews? Tduk (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right to question the use of "many" and "most", which are used as examples of weasel words to watch out for in articles, if unsupported. In this case we have the ScreenCrush source whose writer has done the research and summarizes various critic's views as presented here. Regarding a commonality of critics to pan new sci-fi franchises, we should also have a reliable source that says this before we apply it to article content. —ADavidB 02:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with that, thank you for your reply. I guess my worry is that other franchies branches received equal criticism, but if we don't place that in their respective leads, are we giving it undue WP:WEIGHT by including it in the lede here? Tduk (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)