Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Talk page help

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.


I was under the impression the arrived at abbreviation for the series was DSC, not DIS. 11:59, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe officially by CBS, but not on Memory Alpha. Please see: this discussion. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:02, September 25, 2017 (UTC)
The conversation you linked to is a bunch of editors saying you should use DSC and admin saying it's been decided. One of the stated goals was uniformity, but it seems like other major Trek sites are converging around DIS (by my count, including TrekCore, TrekMovie, the two major Star Trek subreddits and of course the official I understand that this decision had been made, but I wonder if it's worth revisiting at the end of the season. It would be unfortunate if the rest of the fandom converges around DSC but MA alone is using DIS. --- Jaz 01:25, October 12, 2017 (UTC) (Edit: and DSC is being used in-show, in last week's episode "DSC" was stamped on the outside of a shuttle. This would follow the precedent of DS9 of using the same acronym as in-universe.--- Jaz 01:29, October 12, 2017 (UTC))
So, that's why we also use VGR? That's the official CBS acronym for Voyager. It was on some shuttles too.
At MA, we set in place the format of using the first three letters from single word titles (VOY, ENT, and now... DIS). We're just being consistent with it. So what if things don't always match up. -- sulfur (talk) 02:03, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

VHS and DVD releases

Maybe we should wait til there's some kind of answer, first, about whether the show will be released on DVD, Blu-ray, and/or VHS before adding the typical "VHS and DVD releases" subheading in all the episode articles? --Defiant (talk) 12:32, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

I had them all there commented out in case there were any particular ones we needed later, but I guess someone made them all visible again. I'll fix it so they're hidden again. -- Michael Warren | Talk 12:38, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, why are we talking about VHS, a format that has been officially dead for more than a decade? Just sayin--GILESFAN411 (talk) 20:59, October 19, 2019 (UTC)

You do know that you are makeing a comment about things being dead as a reply to a comment that has been made over 2 years ago? Just saying -- M o r p h i a s (C | T/D/W | E) 122,636 contributions and counting 21:42, October 19, 2019 (UTC)

Production companies

Clarification - is bad robot still involved in production or not? 20:33, September 26, 2017 (UTC)

This was never answered for some reason. But, for the record, Bad Robot was never involved in the production of Star Trek: Discovery. They held a license to produce Star Trek movies for Paramount/Viacom, which at the time was separate from CBS, which owned the Star Trek IP. CBS hired Alex Kurtzman's company Secret Hideout to make Discovery. Bad Robot never had anything to do with it. The confusion arises because Kurtzman used to work for Bad Robot. But Secret Hideout is a completely different company, and despite what you might see claimed on YouTube, is not "the Section 31 branch of Bad Robot". —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:25, September 22, 2019 (UTC)

Behind the scenes images

[1] --LauraCC (talk) 21:03, September 26, 2017 (UTC)

Episode transcripts?

I've recently been in contact with Chrissie, who runs the Chakoteya transcripts website. She's not able to upload transcriptions of the Star Trek: Discovery episodes there, so I've been wondering if there's any support for the creation of DIS episode transcripts hosted on MA? Of course, as has been found with Chrissie's excellent website, transcripts make the building of MA's encyclopedic content much easier. This could continue with Discovery. --Defiant (talk) 15:19, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that this site has transcripts, though I never used it and have no idea how trustworthy it is. As for your idea, to the extent that it's not a copyright problem it seems like a good idea on the face of it. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:48, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
Can Chrissie not do it for legal reasons? (I don't need to know the reason if not) I'm undecided but I would say that if we did it for DIS we would probably need to do it for the other shows/films too. 31dot (talk) 15:52, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the Springfield one is that it's hard to know who's speaking in some transcripts. --LauraCC (talk) 15:57, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have transcript of all episodes and movies right here at the most definitive reference source for everything related to Star Trek. There's wiki's that do that, the ones for Fringe and Adventure Time come to mind. But I don't think we nescesarily need to have transcripts for all series if we have them for DIS, it could be a resource for internal use, an in-house solution to a problem our users face and no one else is providing a solution for. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:47, October 5, 2017 (UTC)
"to the extent that it's not a copyright problem" - well, I would say it's a pretty big copyright problem. Very unlikely to be able to justify fair use for reproducing the entire episode. Even if that weren't an issue, I think an encyclopaedia creating its own sources to rely upon is a bit iffy. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:23, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous official descriptions

Has anyone noticed this paragraph floating around and caught the error?

Created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman for CBS All Access, the story of ``Star Trek: Discovery begins roughly a decade before Captain Kirk's five-year mission -- as portrayed in the original "Star Trek" from the 1960s -- and a century before the events of "Star Trek: Enterprise." The series follows the crew of the USS Discovery as they encounter new worlds and civilizations, delving into familiar themes and expanding upon an incident that has been talked about within the franchise's universe, but never fully explored.

I noticed this when browsing CraveTV and seeing Discovery was already there (although I'm just gonna watch it on Space on Demand, long as I finish before February). A decade before Kirk's 5-year mission sounds right... but a century BEFORE Enterprise? Enterprise was a prequel to Kirk!

You can see this at the archive of at not sure how many sources carry this mistake.

CBS phrases it correctly at

the series will act as a bridge between the first two series in the timeline, about a century after Star Trek: Enterprise (which was a prequel) and a decade before The Original Series

Does anyone know the first instance we can locate of this AFTER>BEFORE change regarding Enterprise and how many official distributors are misrepresenting the show like this? What noob even wrote this? Clearly not someone who watched Enterprise. Did they perhaps get it mixed up with NextGen/DS9/Voyager? talk2ty 19:19, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

If that wasn't bad enough, you have people ripping this off and trying to pass it off as original writing by changing a few verb tenses (18 January 2019)

Discovery begins a decade before Captain Kirk's five-year mission in the 1960s series and a century before the events of Star Trek: Enterprise.
The series followed the crew of the USS Discovery as they encounter new worlds and civilizations while delving into familiar themes. Discovery also expanded upon the Federation-Klingon war, an incident that has been talked about within the franchise's universe, but never fully explored.

Do the pair of Tilly Pearce and Joanne Kavanaugh represent the current state of reporting on TV science fiction in current year? talk2ty 05:45, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

You thought there was some kind of grand journalistic tradition in tv science fiction reporting? But anyway, unless there's an error on this very article, all this doesn't really seem all that relevant to us. Some website making a mistake while trying to cover Trek is not very noteworthy. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:44, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Split rationale

I think the entire "Reception" section should be split off to DIS Season 1 where it is better placed as all reviews and associated awards concern that season, especially since the preliminary reports on the reception suggest an improvement for season 2, which when all the votes are in can be discussed on that page, and-so-forth--Sennim (talk) 08:33, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Alan (talk) 13:17, March 4, 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:03, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

Moved--Sennim (talk) 08:50, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

Canon controversy

I'm writing because of Midnight's Edge series of youtube videos about Star Trek Discovery being based in an alternate universe like Kelvin movies. Shouldn't it be a part of this article? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Given that's apparently a series of fan-made YouTube videos, no, it should not. Also, Discovery is set in the Prime Timeline, even if the different look makes it hard for some people to believe. Wixelt (talk) 10:54, March 9, 2019 (UTC)
Keep drinking the Kool-aide, kid. --Alan (talk) 11:01, March 9, 2019 (UTC)
DIS was created using the Kelvin licence. The prime timeline refereed specifically to the prime timeline pre-kelvin incident branching to create the timeline used in the movies beyond that; you have main, canon trek, and then you have JJverse trek, which starts in it's prime timeline where spock fails to save the romulan homeworld and promptly branches into the kelvin timeline when time-traveling romulans start shooting up the past. The kelvin timeline movies couldn't use canon trek, the prime timeline was created as a stand-in, which was later reused for Discovery. And I wouldn't really care, if discovery stuff wasn't being freely mixed into main universe trek on this site. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
If you don't like the scope of this site, you are free to go and create your own wiki where you can have whatever scope you want. 31dot (talk) 00:17, March 18, 2019 (UTC)
It's not the scope, it's the inaccuracy. Discovery should be on this site, same as the Kelvin movies, but the prime timeline is the kelvin licence's prime timeline in the JJ Abrams trek universe (which contains the initial "prime timeline" that got about 5 minutes of screen time and the "kelvin timeline" created by the time-traveling romulans mucking about in the past), it isn't part of the main trek universe or licence and legally distinct from it. It should be categorized as such, be it as it's own thing or a branch of the kelvin trek universe. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Note that CBS owns the license that Discovery is being made under. Paramount owns the "Kelvin universe" license. -- sulfur (talk) 20:08, March 18, 2019 (UTC)
You're making up distinctions that do not exist. Discovery is within the same timeline/continuity/canon as the other shows, and the non-Kelvin films. The "prime" timeline is the "main trek universe." The two are one and the same. Your personal preferences don't enter into this. This is what the creators' have stated, and how Discovery was written/designed. There's no controversy. --Gilneas06 (talk) 23:41, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
Kind of hoped the fact the footage from "The Cage" was used in the episode "If Memory Serves" would put an end to the debate, it makes it really clear that the intention is that Discovery takes place in the TOS timeline. --LateDuck (talk) 01:39, March 22, 2019 (UTC)
Now that they stated on screen Lt. Yor came from an alternate timeline started by a Romulan mining vessel in Ep 3.9 can we now settle this discussion, please? PmmGarak (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Season 3 date

Umm, if season 3 of Discovery take place 950 years from 2258, wouldn't that make it the 33rd century given the year is ~3208? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Based on this article from "TREKSPHERE" Michelle Yeoh’s Star Trek ‘Spin-off’ Section 31 Moves Into Pre Production

With a vale of mystery surrounding this ‘spinoff’ not much is known about the plot or any potential returning cast from Star Trek: Discovery, and as of yet nothing is known about the year it will be set in. It is possible that somehow, Georgiou returns from the year 3188 to the late 23rd century only time will tell.  Currently the only information we have to go on is what Alex Kurtzman has said about the show:
It occupies an area of the ‘Trek’ universe that’s never really been explored geographically. It has a new mythology to it, which is very interesting. And it puts Michelle’s character to the test in a lot of ways that ‘Discovery’ can’t. In some ways it will be her ‘Unforgiven,’ I would say.

 — James Hams and Alex Kurtzman
Discovery will be in the year 3188. -- M o r p h i a s (C | T/D/W | E) 122,636 contributions and counting 15:17, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

Tardigrades Lawsuit

Why has there been zero mention of the plagiarism lawsuit filed by Anas Abdin claiming this show is a total ripoff of his video game "Tardigrades"? I agree with Abdin, because the similarities are insurmountable. I would have assumed this would be a major issue on this page.-- 21:47, June 10, 2019 (UTC)

Please offer any sources you have to support this. 31dot (talk) 23:31, June 10, 2019 (UTC) -- 00:26, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

How about a credible, non-3rd party source? --Alan (talk) 00:40, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

You can Bing or Google STAR TREK:DISCOVERY PLAGIARISM CLAIM and you will find a lot online that spells out the charges Anas Abdin has levied against all the people involved as well as the death threats DISCO fans have levied against him.-- 01:16, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to find sources to support your claims. 31dot (talk) 03:00, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

That YouTube video spells it all out for you. What more do you need? Watch the damn thing, it chronicles everything.-- 16:22, June 12, 2019 (UTC)

More about the bts chaos,

Anyone can post a YouTube video about anything. Do you have any news reports? 31dot (talk) 02:39, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

MORE about the OBVIOUS plagiarism at play here. I think it's LONG OVERDUE for you people to talk about this on the show's article page. -- 23:35, June 30, 2019 (UTC)

Start finding actual references from print/etc. Where's the lawsuit registered? All lawsuits that have been submitted are available somewhere.
Instead of posting garbage YouTube videos, let's post the actual real details. I did some google searching and once I got past the first couple pages of over-the-top YouTube stuff, I actually found something useful. The actual court documents. If you'd started there three weeks ago, we would've been FAR MORE interested in this rather than you posting videos from the same YouTube channel all over. Here's what I found: -- sulfur (talk) 00:41, July 1, 2019 (UTC)

HERE YOU GO-Are you people really not aware of this? There are more, but do I really need to include them? GODDAMN!-- 01:16, July 1, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, fuck us for not taking every anon with links to a YouTube channel seriously. How dare we not believe everything on the internet without sources or citations. We can all go to hell since we don't have the time to dig into everything what with all the other stuff we're doing and having to have actual jobs so we can afford to live in this darkest of the timelines. So to answer your question: yes, provide links to actual sources or news articles instead of editorials and commentary and we'll take you seriously next time. If you can't tell the difference between the two, get educated till you can. - Archduk3 01:35, July 1, 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean you're actually gonna include it on the show's article page? Are you going to at all acknowledge Anas Abdin's claims?-- 02:37, July 1, 2019 (UTC)

WELL, WELL, WELL, here we are, more than a month and you people have said nothing about the plagiarism case. Are you deliberately choosing to not acknowledge it?-- 00:39, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

It really must seem like the whole world is out to get you when you just keep skimming over people's trying to help you help yourself. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:55, July 22, 2019 (UTC)
The case has been dismissed. The judge ruled that Abdin had failed to show "substantial similarity" between his unreleased video game and Discovery. [2]
Although the case did have a fair amount of coverage in certain corners of the Internet, I doubt that in the long run it merits mention in this article, or anywhere else on MA for that matter.
As a side note, I was amused to see that in her ruling dismissing the case, the judge cited Memory Alpha. (There is a link to a PDF of the ruling here.) On page 8, in a summary of Discovery's plot and concept, the judge notes that "The Federation’s intergalactic missions and Klingon antagonism to the Federation has been a part of Star Trek since the first season of The Original Series.4; footnote 4 says, "See Memory Alpha “Errand of Mercy (episode)” available at" Perhaps if this lawsuit deserves to be mentioned anywhere on MA, it’s at "Errand of Mercy"! —Josiah Rowe (talk) 02:51, September 22, 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't really have anything to do with that episode, but it is one of the more interesting acknowledgments we have gotten. - Archduk3 18:27, September 22, 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a "legal cases" section on that page? 31dot (talk) 23:16, September 22, 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Do we have any lawyers, or at least anyone who understands how to properly cite a court case? I found a direct link to a PDF of the decision, but we should probably also cite it in the correct legal format, so people can (in theory) find it if the link goes dead. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 00:31, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
Been lookin into this whole drama myself and I am of the mindset this Anas Abdin guy got railroaded. The judge was looking at the case with a very narrow interpretation of copyright. There is a term in the business called Scenes a faire which basically states images used in film are not protected, things like Westerns that use the camera focusing tighter and tighter on each other or a stuntman leaping onto the roof of a car. But the Scenes a faire argument cannot be applied here because the Tardigrades game has sequences unique onto Itself. Yolanda IS Micheal Burnham, Maciek IS Paul Stamets, Aziz IS Hugh Culber and Maciek and Aziz ARE a gay couple. This is plagiarism plain as day and the wrong decision was reached. Aside from that, If this show is the in between of ENT and TOS, the uniforms are way off, the tech is far too advanced, the ship's design matches nothing of what was seen on either show and their version of the Klingons look more like overly tanned Cardassians. I was never able to get into it because of these reasons. Disco producers should do the right thing and cut Abdin in on the profits.--GILESFAN411 (talk) 01:01, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, for several reasons. One, the game was never completed, and the characters were never developed any deeper than one-paragraph summaries, so you really can't say that such-and-such a character IS so-and-so. (In fact, the "Tardigrades" characters are so loosely defined that in the legal filings the supposed Stamets analogue character changes from Maciek to Carter. Abdin and his team couldn't even decide which character Stamets was supposed to be a copy of.)
Second, as (again) the game was never developed, all that exists of it is the 8-page "treatment" and a handful of video clips, both of which clearly show a generic science-fiction setting (e.g. a space station with uniformed personnel). Those are the unprotectable scènes-à-faire elements.
Third, the "very narrow interpretation of copyright" is actually the legal interpretation. Jonathan Bailey, an expert on copyright law, followed the case quite closely on his PlagiarismToday website. Before the judge's ruling, Bailey argued that Abdin's case was weak, for precisely the reasons the judge eventually ruled against it. You can read his coverage here, here and here.
The complaints about Discovery's uniforms, tech, designs and so forth are completely immaterial to the question of Abdin's lawsuit – though the aesthetic response you note may have something to do with the way that certain YouTubers have glommed onto Abdin's case, and have promoted his appeal even though as a matter of law, no new evidence may be presented in the appeal.
Finally, the purpose of this page is not to discuss the merits of Abdin's lawsuit, or whether it should have been decided differently. The purpose of this page is to discuss Memory Alpha's article on Star Trek: Discovery. The only relevant questions are whether the article should mention the lawsuit, and if so, how. I haven't seen any argument for why this lawsuit deserves to be mentioned in the article. Is there one? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:59, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, since the case did go to court and is now a matter of public record, there should be a mention somewhere that Discovery was sued over claims of plagiarism and that the Discovery team won in the end. This is solely based on the fact that it is a now matter of public record, but it does not need a whose section or page dedicated to it, just a
Mentionof the lawsuit and Discovory's win
tag or something along those lines. -- M o r p h i a s (C | T/D/W | E) 122,636 contributions and counting 14:16, October 18, 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that something similar to what Wikipedia has in their article on Discovery would be OK. I'll add a very short bit along those lines. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:35, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

As a guy who followed this case, I am actually on Abdin's side. The similarities between the series and the game are too many, that is why I stopped watching after "The Vulcan Hello", because afterward I learned of the game. Anas Abdin is being screwed over by the producers. Just admit you ripped this guy off and give him the slices of the pie the man is due. I am a lifelong Trekkie and even I see plain as day that the show is nothing more than a paint by numbers copy of the game. The producers are greedy, cruel and are eating the steaks from the cows Abdin slaughtered for them. This whole thing is a disgrace and no true fan should be watching, The show deserves to be consigned to oblivion.--GILESFAN411 (talk) 13:46, November 26, 2019 (UTC)

Netflix UK removal

Perhaps because Channel 4 started airing it, Netflix have removed the show. The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheAtomicLight (talk • contribs).

Perhaps, Channel 4 is airing the re-runs and Netflix will air the new episodes, when they become available.
-- M o r p h i a s (C | T/D/W | E) 122,636 contributions and counting 00:41, March 2, 2020 (UTC)
No, it was a mix-up from Netflix UK who had somehow got all of Netflix US's stuff on computers, but the tablets are still UK. I've restarted since, and it's all gone back to normal. -- TheAtomicLight (talk) 01:37, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Missing main title theme

The previous 6 show pages (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) all have main title themes but it appears DIS, PIC, and LD do not. Is there some sort of copyright issue blocking this or have we just not gotten around to it yet? --Hurrah123456 (talk) 18:21, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

The latter. -- Sulfur (talk) 18:38, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


Does anyone know what happened with the stardates? They seem to be extremely inconsistent. Was it a call back to TOS's stardates? --Sansd20 (talk) 21:51, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, one of the production folks (Kurtzman, I think) said he's not at all fond of stardates (and captain's logs) and so they're not generally using them. -- Renegade54 (talk) 23:34, September 30, 2020 (UTC)
It was Michael Chabon, the former showrunner of Star Trek: Picard.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:48, September 30, 2020 (UTC)
Here is the link to an article in which Chabon states his opinion on stardates - (talk) 23:50, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

No real world content since the show started, it seems

All of the real-world / BTS content on this page seems to exist in a pre-show-existing time period. Especially the reactions section. The people quoted in that section are all talking about it like they have no idea what it's about. Clearly this is out of date as there have been four seasons of the show by now. So these "reactions" are mostly "reactions to the announcement that there will be a show that exists" rather than reactions to the actual show that now does exist. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romulusnr (talk • contribs).

Most of the reactions to the show existing are found in the various season pages. If you find some early reaction things like that, feel free to add it with appropriate citation. -- Sulfur (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)